Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 July.

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 11 July.

GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 10 July at 7 o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Children's Hospices

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make resources available to ensure that children's hospices receive the same level of funding as other hospices. [127508]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): Children's hospices are on the same footing as adult hospices. We are increasing the resources available to the national health service across the board, and we expect local areas to put in place palliative care strategies; that includes support for children, and families too.

Mr. Hoyle: I do not think that that is quite the case—far from it. In fact, Derian house, based in Chorley, does not get the same funding as an adult hospice would. All that we are asking for is equal funding. Quite rightly, my neighbour, Mr. Leo Duffy, who is the treasurer to Derian house, came to see me and asked me why children's hospices do not receive the same amount. I could not give him an answer, but I promised that I would raise that with my hon. Friend the Minister. I do hope that we can change the situation and that funding can be found, especially as children's hospices—particularly the one in Chorley—

take children from all over the country, and therefore the burden should be spread and there should be direct funding from the Government.

Yvette Cooper: It is a matter for local commissioners to develop palliative care in each area and to set up appropriate commissioning arrangements. We expect that to include support for children as well as for adults. We are aware that, where children have illnesses that are life-threatening, there are specific additional needs for support for such children and their families. That is exactly why we have introduced the Diana's children's community nursing teams, who often work with hospices to provide extra support directly for those children and families in need.

Mrs. Marion Roe: As chairman of the all-party parliamentary hospice group, I am aware that not just children's hospices but many other hospices are finding it extremely difficult to meet their revenue costs mainly from voluntary subscription, and that some are facing serious financial problems. Will the Minister undertake to review the resourcing from the Government for hospices, to ensure that they remain viable and continue to provide such a worthwhile service in our community?

Yvette Cooper: We recognise the huge contribution that the hospice movement makes to palliative care. We have identified the need for more systematic support for palliative care, especially for cancer; that is why Professor Mike Richards is currently developing a supportive care strategy for palliative care that includes suggestions of how we can improve that across the board.

Commission for Health Improvement

Mr. David Borrow: If he will make a statement on the role of the Commission for Health Improvement. [127509]

Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the role of the Commission for Health Improvement. [127511]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The commission's role is set out in section 20 of the Health Act 1999. The Commission for Health Improvement is the health service's first independent inspectorate. It began its programme of hospital reviews last week. The commission will help to raise standards in all parts of the NHS as part of the Government's drive to tackle unacceptable variations in performance across the NHS.

Mr. Borrow: As a Member of Parliament representing an area where postcode medicine is at its worst, I welcome that statement by my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that users of the NHS attach much more importance to the raising of standards within the NHS than they do to the policy of the Conservative party, which is to promote private health insurance and the use of the private sector?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. The country has a fundamental choice to make. The Conservatives seem


to have made their choice. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) confirmed in the House last week—and on television earlier last week—that their policy is now to contemplate spending about £468 million on subsidising people who already have private health insurance, in company-based schemes, out of the taxpayer's pocket. I believe that it is also the case that, earlier this year, the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition explored the possibility of the taxpayer subsidising individuals who had private health insurance policies. The deadweight cost of that alone would come to £1 billion. That is more than the costs of this year's nurses' pay rise and of the modernisation, in which we are investing, in casualty departments in every part of the country.
The Conservatives have made their choice; we have made a different choice. Our choice is for the national health service—free, fair, funded from general taxation and based on need, not ability to pay. I believe that that will be the choice of the British people at the next general election.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the commission raises standards in such a way that it will be impossible for the Conservative party to introduce a two-tier system in the national health service and, more important, for things such as hip replacements and so on; and that it will ensure that the private sector, as supported by the Conservative party, will not get a foot in the door?

Mr. Milburn: The Commission for Health Improvement has a very important role to play in the NHS. Although regrettably the Opposition voted against the establishment of the commission in the Health Act 1999, many people agree that it is about time that we had some form of independent inspectorate for the national service. We all know from our constituents that the quality of care, standards of service and even the services on offer vary immensely according to the part of the country in which people live. That is unfair and it has to change. One of the ways that we can best do that is through an independent inspectorate such as the Commission for Health Improvement.
My hon. Friend is right. Our ambition as a Government is to raise the standards of care, so that patients everywhere—and not just in some places—get first-class health services.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Secretary of State accept that what drives up quality in most services is not just inspectorates—important though they are—but the choice of users within the service? Are we not fighting with one hand tied behind our back by depriving users of the national health service of choice between different hospitals? Should not that choice be restored?

Mr. Milburn: I have heard the right hon. Gentleman make such comments before both in this place and in the articles that he has written for newspapers. We have made the point before that he is wrong. In fact, if he cared to examine the history of choice in the national health service, he would know that, prior to the introduction of the Conservatives' internal market in the early 1990s, there was freedom to refer for individual general practitioners.

Unfortunately, the internal market mechanisms, and particularly the establishment of GP fundholding, meant that that choice was denied to 50 per cent. of GPs. We have restored the right to refer, because every primary care group now has the choice of where best its patients should receive the care that they need.

Mr. Philip Hammond: The Government have announced plans for a proper watchdog for independent hospitals—a watchdog that will have teeth and the power to inspect the hospitals and to deregister them if they are not safe and satisfactory. By comparison, the Commission for Health Improvement is a toothless tiger with no sanctions available to it. Given the Government's policy of treating increasing numbers of NHS patients in the private sector, is it not time to establish a single, unified regulatory and inspection body that is responsible for monitoring standards across all hospitals, so that people can be confident of the quality of health care that is being delivered to them wherever it is delivered and however it is financed?

Mr. Milburn: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I know that he has been exploring some of these issues in Committee with my hon. Friends. The Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission have very different functions. The Commission for Health Improvement is intended to act as an independent inspectorate for the national health service as a managed care system, which is what it is. The National Care Standards Commission has a quite different function. However, the hon. Gentleman is aware, as my hon. Friends are aware, that we introduced an amendment during the passage of the Care Standards Bill through the House to ensure that there is much closer co-operation and flexibility between the two commissions. That is the right thing to do, and it will help to ensure that wherever people receive care—whether in the health and social care system or in the public or private sectors—the quality of care that they receive is always of the highest possible standard.

NICE (Drugs)

Mr. John Heppell: How many people he estimates are now receiving drugs who would not have received them in their area before recommendations by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [127510]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): NICE has completed its appraisal of the taxane drugs. It estimates that an additional 4,000 women with advanced breast cancer and 1,000 with advanced ovarian cancer should now be offered treatment with taxane drugs who might have been denied access to those treatments before guidance was issued.

Mr. Heppell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is particularly pleasing to know that 5,000 women suffering from breast cancer will receive a proven and effective treatment for that cancer, which they would not have previously received under the postcode prescription


lottery that we inherited from the previous Government. The cost of that treatment, however, will be £7 million. How will health authorities be able to find that money?

Mr. Denham: The health authorities will be able to meet the costs of this decision from the record increases in funding that we have made available to the national health service and, in particular, the £660 million allocated to health authorities just after the recent Budget.
I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that, in Nottingham, provision for taxanes has risen from less than £30,000 in the early part of last year to more than £300,000. My officials advise me that that should be sufficient to make the drug available as indicated by the guidelines.

Mr. Nick Harvey: Is the Minister satisfied with the progress that NICE is making? Was its original objective to examine not only new and existing drugs, but other procedures and interventions throughout the health service? Given that its first work programme was to examine only 13 drugs, that the plan is to get that number to only 30 per annum and that more than 100 new drugs come on to the market each year, how on earth will it catch up with the task of examining even just the new drugs, let alone its original task of considering all existing procedures in the NHS?

Mr. Denham: I am very pleased with NICE's progress. It has given important guidance on relenza, stents, wisdom teeth and a variety of drugs and procedures. In the first year, it has been essential that NICE establish its credibility in its decision-making and appraisal systems. It will move on to assess more drugs. We are currently consulting on the referral of about a dozen extra cancer drugs to NICE and shall shortly announce decisions on that referral. At the same time, NICE is commissioning guidelines on the handling of several different conditions.
NICE has therefore made a good start to its work. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: NICE is a critical part of the future of the national health service and we must ensure that it has the capacity to do its job fully.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I tell my hon. Friend how welcome was the recent announcement to add zyban, the anti-smoking drug, to the possibilities to help people give up that terrible habit? However, will he explain why a ban has been placed on the prescription of that drug in East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority? Is that simply a local decision, and can my hon. Friend do anything to assist in making the drug available?

Mr. Denham: I shall certainly examine the position in Sussex. The answer is that that would have been a local decision by the health authority. Clearly, we are giving consideration to the question of whether zyban should be referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

Dr. Liam Fox: On that point, what criteria were used to make sure that beta interferon was referred to NICE, but that zyban was not, before the Secretary of State's decision was announced?

Mr. Denham: There is a set of well-publicised criteria, including the likely impact on the national health service

and possible benefits for patients, all of which were set out in public form in documents that were published last summer. Those criteria have been used to make decisions on referral to NICE, and will continue to be used for the future consideration of existing drugs and new drugs that become available.

Dr. Fox: Will the Minister tell us what is the difference, in his view, between affordability and the effective use of clinical resources?

Mr. Denham: Quite clearly, NICE has been asked to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drugs and treatments. I believe that, in a speech last week, the hon. Gentleman supported the Government's position that NICE should examine clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The question of the total amount of resources available to the NHS is clearly a responsibility of Ministers and government.

Dr. Fox: What a muddle. Is it not true that there is no difference between the concept of affordability and the effective use of clinical resources? The Government changed the criteria for NICE because that was merely another spin trick for Ministers who wanted an arm's-length rationing mechanism as they were too cowardly to take decisions directly. Is not the real reason that zyban was rushed in that the Government were desperate to get another good news story on health, regardless of its consequences or even their own policy? Does that not show that Ken Follett was spot-on with his analysis of the Government, when he said that they were intellectually bankrupt, morally suspect, all spin and no substance, and were willing to let anyone suffer, as long as Ministers got good headlines?

Mr. Denham: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. We have made it perfectly clear, from the time that NICE was first proposed, that it would need to consider clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. That is in all the documents that the Government published. We have made it clear many times that we amended the establishment order for NICE last summer because we had received legal advice that, as the order was drafted, NICE would not have been able to consider cost-effectiveness at all. Given that the hon. Gentleman believes that NICE needs to consider cost-effectiveness as well as clinical effectiveness, he would have been required to make that amendment, had he been in that position—[Interruption.] I must tell Conservative Members that that advice was received by the Government.

NHS Trusts (Mergers)

Mr. Phil Sawford: What advice his Department gives to health authorities regarding mergers of NHS trusts. [127512]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): We have said that mergers should proceed only where they bring clear benefits for health and health care. Every merger must save at least


£500,000 in management costs in the first two years. The savings released are retained locally for investment in front-line NHS services.

Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she recognise that in trust mergers, services do not always dovetail perfectly? Where they do not, will she give guidance and ensure that services are levelled up, rather than down, that there is no fragmentation of services and that services to patients are the principal factor guiding the process?

Ms Stuart: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend, and the proposals for Northamptonshire make it clear that we want to create a new organisation that delivers community-based services throughout the county. It is intended that the new organisation will capitalise on best practice, and the main outcome will be that local people and staff will have access to high-quality, modern community services. My hon. Friend will be aware that consultation on the proposals is well under way, and the outcome will be accepted by Ministers only when it is clear that the proposals represent the best possible options for patients locally.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that when two NHS trusts merge, each with its own hospital with an accident and emergency department, it will not lead to one of those departments closing? I am thinking in particular of the merger between Chase Farm and Barnet.

Ms Stuart: It may be helpful if I remind the hon. Gentleman that mergers of trusts should not be confused with hospital services reconfigurations. Merger proposals concern the merging of organisations and management, and the services that are to be provided form part of the reorganisation structure. Trust mergers do not always lead to the closure of associated hospitals—that is always a matter for local consultation.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: When considering trust mergers, will my hon. Friend have regard to the fact that we now have community health trusts, whose functions are changing? Are there are any proposals to make trust mergers more efficient by merging community health trusts with hospital trusts, or is there a general policy in the Department to review the workings of community health trusts?

Ms Stuart: As it stands, it is unlikely that community and acute trusts will he merging. It is important to stress that mergers and reconfigurations are being considered because we have ended the competition of the internal market in which one hospital competed with another, and our policy has a wider scope and focuses on the provision of decent services for local areas. I take on board what my hon. Friend said about the provision of community services, but any mergers have to be in the interests of the patients and must provide significant savings for the local community.

Mr. John Wilkinson: When contemplating trust mergers, will the hon. Lady always bear it in mind that a clear line of responsibility and chain of command are crucial for the effective provision of

services within the hospitals that are grouped together? Is it not the case that, all too often, the loyalty and morale of individuals are undermined and, as a consequence, the standard of patient care diminishes?

Ms Stuart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the whole purpose of the process must be to improve patient care, and that sometimes requires sensitive handling of discussions and negotiations, because some of us fear change more than others. That is why we are always sensitive about the need to consult locally with all key stakeholders and to come up with service configurations that serve local communities. Sometimes that is difficult: when we inherit health economies that have run up huge deficits, hard choices have to be made. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the bottom line for any decision is patient care.

NHS Staff (Violence)

Mr. Ivan Lewis: If he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to protect NHS staff from violence. [127514]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Violence to staff in the national health service is unacceptable. A cross-Government campaign, the NHS zero tolerance zone, was launched last October with targets to reduce violence against staff by 20 per cent. by April 2001 and 30 per cent. by April 2003. Changes have also been made to the choice of medical practitioner regulations to combat violence against GPs.

Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. How many verbal and physical attacks on NHS staff have been recorded recently? More specifically, can he assure my constituents in Bury, South that he and other Health Ministers liaise with the Home Office to ensure that those brought to the courts and convicted of such attacks on NHS staff feel the full force of the law?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend raises some important issues. Our surveys show that about 65,000 staff suffered physical and verbal assaults last year. One of the aims of the new strategy is to ensure that all such incidents are recorded, so the figure will probably increase in the short term as people are encouraged to report them. He is right that cross-Government co-operation is important. We work closely with the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department on that strategy. For example, the Lord Chancellor, who is president of the Magistrates Association, has said that it is entirely legitimate for magistrates to respond decisively to a particular form of criminal behaviour, such as assaults on NHS staff, and to impose a sentence that has a deterrent component. In the Bury area, where the police, the health authority and the magistracy co-operate closely, there has been a reduction in violent incidents against staff of some 24 per cent.

Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate the Government on the work that they have done in improving casualty departments and, therefore, reducing, I hope, threats of violence in them. Employing more porters has helped in that respect. Can the Minister give an assurance that community staff will not be forgotten?
In a age where 10-year-olds all seem to have their own mobile phones, is there any reason why community staff have to share mobile phones between teams?

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. We shall produce further material as part of the campaign, either at the end of this month or at the beginning of August, which will provide guidance to staff, health authorities and employers in mental health and community health settings and the ambulance services because those staff are at particular risk. On mobile phones and other forms of communication, I agree that employers should make proper assessments locally. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman sighs, but the work done by individual members of staff varies, so it is important that the working position of each of them is considered. In circumstances where such measures would add to their safety, I certainly think that employers should put them in place.

Air Ambulance Services

Mr. David Heath: What Government financial support is given to the provision of air ambulance services. [127515]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): Air ambulance services in England are financed largely through public subscription. We support existing services by providing qualified paramedic crew through the national health service.

Mr. Heath: Given that there is evidence that air ambulance services can result in a significant reduction in deaths in transit and from head injuries and in the amount of time spent in intensive care, is not it extraordinary that they are entirely dependent on public subscription and charitable fund raising? Even more extraordinarily, I am told that some ambulance trusts charge air ambulance services for providing paramedics to go out and save people. Would it not be better if this country were to follow the example of Germany, where there is properly co-ordinated, comprehensive air ambulance cover, which is at least partly publicly funded?

Ms Stuart: I fear that I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman because the evidence on the clinical outcome is by no means as persuasive as his question would suggest. Professor Jon Nicholls made it clear in his report, "The costs and effectiveness of helicopter emergency ambulance services", that the evidence is not convincing. All the local studies on the outcomes, including those in London, have not made the case for air ambulances. However, it is important that we support them. In some areas they are most appropriate, not least in the hon. Gentleman's area, where the NHS provides 14 trained paramedics to support the service. According to all our evidence, the optimal solution for the 11 air ambulances in the current structure would be to work with the ambulance services, the police and the military when necessary.

Helen Jones: When my hon. Friend considers the financing of air ambulance services, will she also consider the position of those independent air ambulance services that are sometimes used by the

national health service? Will she also consider the need to introduce guidelines for both the staffing and the equipping of air ambulances? Although many air ambulances do an exceptionally good job, there is no guarantee to patients being transferred that standards will be the same as in a road ambulance.

Ms Stuart: That is an important consideration and my hon. Friend may be aware that in the north-west consultation is taking place in the working group on developing proper proposals and protocols for transfer. We agree with her basic sentiment and will certainly take that forward.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister consider carefully the evidence that has come forward, particularly in rural areas, on air ambulances and the way in which they are funded? I understand that the lottery is not willing to provide funds to help the NHS with air ambulances, although a lot of money has been taken from the lottery to replace old NHS equipment. There is not the additionality that people are looking for, but surely additionality is important. I should be grateful if she considered that carefully.

Ms Stuart: It is easy to assume that air ambulances would always provide solutions, certainly in rural areas, and Cornwall was one of the first to have an air ambulance. However, it should be remembered that civilian staffed air ambulances operate only during daytime hours and that the task has its own hazards. For example, there have been a number of civilian deaths in the past few years during such operations so we need to look much more closely at how we get to patients more quickly, whether in rural or urban areas. Our work to improve the ambulance service and support the air ambulance service, rather than thinking that extending air ambulance services would solve the problems experienced in some rural areas, is the right way forward.

Infant Deaths

Ms Hazel Blears: What plans he has to reduce the numbers of infant deaths in inner-city areas. [127516]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Infant mortality rates have fallen for very many years, but there remains a gap between those born into affluent families and those born into more deprived families. We are currently developing a national plan for the NHS, which will set out a programme of change and improvement to address some of those problems. It will confirm that the Government's ambition is not only to improve the health of the population overall, but to narrow the gap between the worst off and the better off.

Ms Blears: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I have no doubt that he is aware of the research from Sussex university that shows that more babies die in Britain than anywhere else in northern Europe, that babies born into the poorest families are twice as likely to die as those born into professional families and that in inner-city areas such as mine—Salford—30 per cent. more babies are likely to die than the average for England and Wales.
Clearly poverty is a major cause of that situation—poverty that doubled under the policies of the Conservative party.
Good food and access to nutrition is one way in which we can begin to tackle that scandalous inequality. Will the Government support schemes launched by my education action zone and sure start to provide free school fruit and to ensure that we provide extra money for young mums and pregnant women to improve their diet? Access to fresh fruit, healthy food and good standards of nutrition are crucial to provide good health for future generations.

Mr. Milburn: This is a very serious issue that deserves to be considered seriously. From visits to my hon. Friend's constituency, I am aware of the good work that is being done by the local authority, the NHS and other players. On health outcomes, she is absolutely right that the gap between the richer and poorer parts of Britain remains stubbornly wide. On infant mortality rates, there was a three and a half to fourfold difference between different health authority areas in the last year for which we have figures. Although progress has been made over many decades to reduce infant mortality rates in England and across the United Kingdom, none the less it is also correct that our infant mortality rates remain above the European Union average. We must address that. To do so, we must not only achieve the proper focus on prevention and treatment, but take action across the Government to tackle some of the root causes of ill health. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a clear correlation between poverty, ill health and, sometimes, infant mortality rates.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Will the Secretary of State explain how his decision to cut the budgets of 11 health action zones in the poorest part of the country, including Salford, will help those plans to cut infant deaths?

Mr. Milburn: I was not aware that the hon. Lady was a signed-up member of the health action zone fan club; obviously I was wrong. I know from her views about the national health service that she likes to visit NHS hospitals to see what it is like for those who do not have private health insurance. I think that that is what she had to say on the record in The Health Service Journal.
There has not been a cut in the amount of money going to health action zone areas. This year, the average increase per zone area budget is 37.5 per cent. Individual HAZs are seeing increases of between 10 per cent. and more than 70 per cent. That is not a cut, but an increase.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that inequalities within some health authorities are even greater than those between health authorities? My constituency comes within the Berkshire health authority. For 20 years, the health authority's view of ending health inequality has been to ensure that it does not spend a penny more in Slough than is spent in the rest of the county. Indeed, over the years it has spent much less in Slough, with the result that infant mortality and deaths from heart attacks and strokes are comparable with those in the inner-city area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears).
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that health authorities are given instructions to tackle the sort of inequalities to which I have referred so that the people of Slough can enjoy the same excellent standard of health that is enjoyed by the people of Wokingham down the road?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right to say that there are inequalities between areas and within health authority areas. We have made it clear that over time we expect health authority areas will be able to move their allocations to primary care groups and trusts so that they begin to address inner health authority problems and inequalities so that there is a fairer distribution of cash between health authority areas and within them.

Mental Health

Mr. Michael Fallon: What the proposed timetable is for taking forward the proposals in the Green Paper "Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983". [127518]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Consultation on our Green Paper "Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983" ended on 31 March. We have received more than 1,000 responses to this Green Paper, and we are considering all of them carefully. We will be making an announcement on the next stage of this reform process in the near future.

Mr. Fallon: Does the Minister's reply mean that he is ruling out legislation in the next Session? If compulsory powers are to be more widely used, does he agree that they should be balanced with better rights to assessment and effective early treatment?

Mr. Hutton: On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have always made it clear that we believe the answer is yes. That is precisely why the proposals on which we consulted set out the establishment of a new independent tribunal. In future that body would take decisions about whether compulsory treatment should be authorised. That would be a significant change from the present procedure whereby such decisions are essentially made by the clinical teams. That would be a substantial contribution to improving patients' civil liberties.
We would expect exactly the same approach to be taken in terms of the treatment of people with mental health problems as for any other group within the NHS, where possible. That should be by agreement and consensus. In some instances where people have very serious mental health problems, that is sadly not the case. Legislation has always recognised the need for a compulsory framework. We think that the present framework can be reconstituted on a fairer and more equitable basis, and that is the basis on which we intend to proceed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, decisions about the introduction of Government legislation will be taken not by me, but by others.

Dr. Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware that many of the people who responded to the Green Paper expressed concern that the Government had not wholeheartedly accepted recommendations made by the expert scoping group on the use of compulsion. Does he agree that compulsion should


not be used as a substitute for good quality care? When legislation is introduced, will he consider using the capacity-based approach to safeguard against the inappropriate use of compulsory treatment?

Mr. Hutton: I must correct my hon. Friend: we did not reject the Richardson committee proposals in that regard. We simply posed an alternative procedure as a different gateway into compulsion. The consultation response revealed a marked divergence of opinion about the benefits or otherwise of a capacity-based system, and we must take that seriously. Of course, compulsion is not a short cut into second-quality treatment. We want patients who have mental health problems to have access to exactly the same high-quality standards of treatment and care as any other group of patients in the NHS.

Mr. Simon Burns: Does the Minister accept that notwithstanding any legislation that may be needed to reform the Mental Health Act 1983, it is equally important that the Government do not lose sight of the massive amount of work that must be done—led by the Government, one hopes—to seek to reduce the ignorance, the discrimination and the stigma attached to mental health problems in this country? If the Government can lead on that and help to educate people and to minimise the fears and the stigma, they would be doing a great favour to the whole of society.

Mr. Hutton: I strongly agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. He has held the same position as I in the Department of Health and he will know the situation. We accept our responsibilities to make sure that people who suffer from mental health problems are not routinely discriminated against in our society, because they certainly are; we know that. There is new legislation about disability discrimination rights on the statute book.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House—I am sure the whole House is with him on this—that the reform of the mental health legislation is only one part of the modernisation programme and the reforms that we have set in train for mental health services. We are putting substantial new resources into improving and changing the front-line services available for people with mental health problems, making them more proactive and able to reach, in particular, patients with severe mental health problems, who do not make contact with traditional mental health services. An important element of the wider work is certainly combating discrimination. We fund a number of initiatives in that area and will continue to do so.

Cataract Operations

Mrs. Ann Cryer: If he will make a statement on the number of cataract operations carried out on the NHS in the last year. [127519]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): In the last year for which figures are available, there were just over 200,000 finished consultant episodes relating to cataract treatments. The £20 million that we are investing in our action on cataracts programme will ensure more efficient services and will increase the

number of operations performed to 250,000 over the next few years. The programme will also ensure that we get waiting times down for cataract treatment.

Mrs. Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful announcement. What impact will those plans have on the situation of my Ilkley constituent, who will have her first out-patient appointment on 25 October, by which time she will have been waiting 16 months; and then, of course, she will have to go on the waiting list for her operation for cataracts? In the early 1990s, I had four elderly relatives suffering from cataracts. All of them had to withdraw their savings in order to pay for an initial appointment. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right—waiting times are too long at present. That is why we want to get them down. With regard to action in her area, I understand that Bradford health authority is to introduce a new programme of work over the next few months precisely in order to get the waiting times down for cataract operations. It is partly a matter of investing more cash, and that is what we are doing, and hopefully also employing more staff. It is also a matter of redesigning the way in which the system works.
In my hon. Friend's health authority area, for example, I understand that a new system will shortly be introduced whereby patients can be referred direct from the optometrist to a hospital waiting list, rather than having to go through the push me-pull me system, backwards and forwards between the optician, the GP, the out-patients department, back to the GP and so on. The delay is almost designed into the system, and we must change that. By streamlining the system and getting more staff and more money in, we can get the waiting times down for treatment. The idea is that through the 60 schemes that we have introduced to take action on cataract waiting times, at the end of the next few years the waiting time for treatment will be down to six months.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement on 30 June that an extra £20 million is being made available for cataract services. The only slight problem was that that announcement was first made in February; it was a re-announcement. Is the fact that the Government are prepared to acknowledge that it was a re-announcement proof that at last they are waking up to what was said in the leaked report yesterday by the Minister's colleagues that enormous damage is being done to confidence in the health service by the constant announcement and then re-announcement of money available to the service?

Mr. Milburn: As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman, who is nearly right, is actually wrong on this issue, as so often. What I announced on 30 June were the areas where the £20 million would be invested. They included the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). There will be 60 local schemes. Many parts of the country will benefit. People will draw the clearest of contrasts between the policy of the current Government, designed to get waiting times down for all conditions, and the Conservatives' policy, which is to force people to take out private health insurance for treatment such as cataract operations, hip and knee replacements and so on.
I remind the hon. Gentleman, should he need reminding, of what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) told The Sunday Times on 16 January. [Interruption.] These are the hon. Gentleman's words, not mine. I shall gladly circulate a copy to all hon. Members on the Opposition Back Benches if they would like to see what the hon. Gentleman said, because he obviously fancies himself as the next leader of the Conservative party and this is to be part of his manifesto. What he said on 16 January was:
Philosophically we have moved on. Insurance companies could cover conditions that are not hi-tech or expensive, like hip and knee replacements and hernia and cataract operations.
There is a very simple choice between this party, determined to get waiting times down and to keep NHS treatment free, and the party opposite, determined to lengthen waiting times and force people to pay for their care.

Prostate Cancer

Mr. Vernon Coaker: What recent research he has commissioned into the (a) causes of and (b) treatment for prostate cancer. [127520]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The Government recently announced an extra £1 million for prostate cancer research this year. Research has now been commissioned on the identification, diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Further work will be considered in the light of the report from an expert review group.

Mr. Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Many people will be very pleased that an extra £1 million has been announced for prostate cancer research and treatment. Will she make sure that as many resources as possible go into research and treatment, because it is of growing concern that we seem to have an ever-increasing number of men suffering from prostate cancer? There has been very little research into prostate cancer so far, and there is very little clarity about the treatment that should be available. We have a long way to go. It is one of the greatest public health issues confronting this country now, and it will continue to confront us over the next few years.

Yvette Cooper: I agree with my hon. Friend. Historically, the level of funding for research into prostate cancer has been too low, given how little we know about the disease and how many men die from it each year. That is exactly why we have put the extra £1 million into new research this year. It is also why we are working with other funders, with the major charities, the Medical Research Council and the Cancer Research Funders Forum, and have asked them as their first project to look into prostate cancer research.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The announcement is extremely welcome. Prostate cancer is a very large killer of men in our society. Will the Minister also bear in mind the fact that in the treatment of prostate cancer, about which so little is known, a large number of different specialists are frequently required to treat one patient? At present the level of understanding among general practitioners is not very high. Will she carefully

examine the idea of having one named specialist in charge of each patient when he is diagnosed as having prostate cancer?

Yvette Cooper: We are commissioning guidance on improving outcomes for prostate cancer as part of the work commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. It is the first of the extra four cancer sites being worked on now. That is exactly the issue that we need to look at, building on the work of Calman Hine.

Whittington Hospital

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What estimate he has made of the long-term cost of private finance initiative funding of the Whittington hospital. [127521]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The current project at the Whittington should have a full-life net present cost of around £100 million. This is for the new building, its maintenance and operation over 30 years at today's prices, regardless of how the project is funded. Before the go-ahead is given to a PFI option, it will need to demonstrate that it delivers better value for money than a publicly funded alternative.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister look very carefully at that and any other case of PFI funding of new buildings and consider, first, the long-term cost to local health services incurred by using private finance rather than public finance for new buildings; secondly, the likely increase in the number of private patients in the hospital to increase the income stream to pay the debts resulting from the PFI; and, thirdly, the implications for outlying health facilities in the district, given that experience of previous PFI initiatives tells us that outlying facilities are often closed and fewer beds are available in PFI-constructed hospitals than in publicly funded hospitals? There is great demand for new buildings in the NHS, but does the Minister accept that we must ensure that they are publicly owned and publicly funded?

Mr. Denham: There is certainly a great demand for new hospitals and hospital buildings, which is why I am pleased that the past three years have seen the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS get under way. However, with respect, my hon. Friend is wrong on all counts. There is no evidence that the PFI funding route leads to reduced bed numbers; the whole point of the procedure is that the number of beds required in the local health economy is determined before the decision is made on whether a hospital will be publicly or privately financed. We shall ensure that hospitals planned in future, whether PFI or public sector financed, take full account of the conclusions of the national beds inquiry, which showed that, under the previous Administration, the number of hospital beds was cut far too far.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: Can the Minister tell us what will be the annual rate of return to private investors who put money into the Whittington hospital?

Mr. Denham: That is a matter for the private investors. What matters to the NHS is to make sure that good value


for money is obtained. Under a PFI scheme, the cost of the PFI route is compared with the cost of the public sector route. Experience so far tells us not only that every single PFI scheme that has gone ahead offers better value for money than the public sector alternative, but that PFI schemes are delivered ahead of schedule, instead of overrunning. On hearing Conservative Members, one might gain the impression that they are opposed to PFI. In reality, the Conservative Government spent tens of millions of pounds on consultants but did not get a single PFI hospital built, whereas the Labour Government have used PFI to start the biggest hospital-building programme in the history of the NHS—hospitals like the one in Carlisle are already open and accepting patients.

Hygiene (NHS Hospitals)

Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will set minimum cleanliness and hygiene standards in NHS trust hospitals and ensure that these are policed. [127522]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Chief executives are responsible for high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in hospitals. Standards for hospital cleanliness and infection control will be subject to independent inspections by the Commission for Health Improvement and the Audit Commission. NHS Estates has recently distributed guidance on cleanliness to all NHS trusts. The national plan will detail how we can take that forward.

Dr. Cable: Does the Minister accept that, even in hospitals with a high degree of clinical competence, narrowly defined, there are potential problems of poor hygiene leading to cross-infection? Does he also accept that that can be caused by a combination of private contractors cutting corners, trust managers trying to save money, and the lack of a proper supervisory system involving nurses, as there used to be under the matron system of old? Would not the principles he describes be strengthened by a system of spot checks, carried out by a national inspectorate and backed up by sanctions against offending contractors and hospitals?

Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman is obviously right to say that the causes of those problems can be numerous and that a variety of individuals and agencies may be responsible. We regard it as a priority that hygiene standards should be maintained and hospitals should be clean and free from the ever-present risk of infection. It is interesting to note that, whereas the Government are prepared to act on these matters, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), at a recent conference in Glasgow, criticised Ministers for taking action to improve hospital cleanliness—and, as usual, got himself into something of a mess. I have no doubt that the public want us to ensure that their hospitals are clean and hygienic.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that the Government should be as responsible for high standards of cleanliness and hygiene as they are for other services that the national health service must provide? For that reason alone, does he agree that the Commission for Health Improvement should be

responsible for delivering cleanliness and hygiene in the private and the public sectors to ensure that the same standards apply in both?

Mr. Hutton: I am not entirely sure that that is the position the Conservative party adopted during the passage of the Care Standards Bill. Perhaps the hon. Lady needs to have a conversation with her Front-Bench colleagues about that. It is important to take effective action to improve standards of cleanliness and hygiene. We are taking that action.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I believe that there is a real problem. My hon. Friend knows that I have spent time in many hospitals over the past 15 years. It has often struck me that the standard of cleanliness in the toilets of many hospitals worries patients and their visitors. Should there not be a major effort to ensure that the necessary standards are achieved?

Mr. Hutton: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. He has much experience of such issues, and I am glad that he looks as well as he does today. We are going to take action to make sure that the issues that he raised are properly addressed. As I said earlier, the national plan, which we shall publish later this summer, will explain the way in which we can take that work forward.

NICE

Mr. John Bercow: What action he is taking to ensure that patients are represented during the deliberations of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [127523]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is responsible for determining its own processes. However, NICE invites submissions from relevant patient groups and offers them the opportunity to comment on draft conclusions of its guidance. There is also patient or lay representation on all of NICE's key committees, including the appraisal committee, the guidelines committee and the appeals panel.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, given that, on his own admission, patients are not directly represented on NICE, will he confirm that NICE's assessment of the cost-effectiveness of beta interferon has taken full account of the costs of home care, domestic adaptations, welfare payments and tax revenues forgone when individuals who are clinically suitable for the drug are denied it? Will the Minister also confirm that the institute will publish in full its findings on those important considerations?

Mr. Denham: I think the House and the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government will not comment on a leak of a draft appraisal—there is some way to go before the full appraisal is published. Publication will occur possibly in August, depending on whether there is an appeal. In general terms, I can say that NICE will receive whatever evidence manufacturers, patient groups or others wish to give about the wider social costs that should be taken into account, and the way in which that should be done.
NICE is certainly required to consider the costs and impact on the NHS and personal social services expenditure. On publication, it is for NICE to determine the way in which it publishes its guidance. On past performance, NICE normally sets out clearly the assessment it has made of the evidence and the way in which it has reached its conclusions. I therefore have no reason at this stage to believe that this case will be any different.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when NICE makes its assessment of drugs and treatments, it takes into account patients' views on the way in which those treatments or drugs have improved their quality of life as well as abated

their symptoms, but that that evidence must be subject to the same rigorous scientific assessment? That would avoid the clouding that the placebo effect provides.

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is obviously essential that NICE's decisions and conclusions command confidence, not only among clinicians but among patients. That is why NICE invites patients' organisations to give evidence. I am sure that those organisations put forward the views of individual patients as well as their assessment of the scientific evidence. However, it is for NICE to determine the methodology that it wants to use, and to reach a conclusion about the evidence, its form and the weight it wishes to give it. I am sure that it gives great weight to properly validated scientific evidence.

Civil List

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the civil list, which supports Her Majesty the Queen in carrying out her official duties as head of state.
The Civil List Act 1972 requires the royal trustees—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Queen's Treasurer and me—to report at least once every 10 years on the royal finances, and to make recommendations to the Government on future civil list arrangements. The current 10-year period ends later this year. We have therefore reviewed the current arrangements, and are today laying a report before the House. It proposes that the amount of the civil list should remain exactly the same over the next decade as it has over the preceding one. It also proposes that the civil list should take on some costs of the monarchy currently met from other sources.
The report sets out not only expenditure on the civil list, but expenditure on the monarchy more widely. That includes the grants in aid for the royal palaces and travel, and spending undertaken by Departments. The report records the very substantial saving of 55 per cent. in real terms over the last 10 years on spending on the monarchy generally.
The annual figure for the civil list was set by the last Government at £7.9 million in 1990. With Her Majesty the Queen's agreement, and following consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, the Government propose that the annual payment should remain at £7.9 million for the next 10-year period. By the year 2010, therefore, the cost of the Queen's civil list will have remained at exactly the same level for 20 years. In addition, there will be costs transferred from public spending in Departments which will now be met by the Queen's civil list. All in all, this represents a substantial saving as a result of lower inflation, and the efficiency of the way in which the Queen's expenses have been managed.
The principal additions to civil list expenditure will be pension contributions to be paid to the Consolidated Fund, and some of the running costs of the royal palaces which are currently funded within the property services grant-in-aid. In total, around £25 million of extra spending over the next 10 years will be transferred to civil list expenditure from other sources. By expanding the costs for which the royal household is directly responsible, we will contribute to the continuing drive for efficiency to which I know it is committed.
We are able to make this proposal for two reasons. First, as I said, the royal household has achieved substantial efficiencies in the civil list over the last decade, amounting in total to some 10 per cent. in real terms. Indeed, the actual increase in expenditure over the decade has been held below inflation. In addition, when the figure of £7.9 million was set 10 years ago, it allowed for an inflation rate of 7.5 per cent. per annum, in line with the average annual inflation of the 1980s. Inflation has turned out much lower than was allowed for. As a result of those factors, a surplus of £35 million on the civil list has accumulated, including interest of around £12 million.
Under the Civil List Act 1972, civil list provision may be increased by order, but it may not be reduced. However, the Act also provides that any surplus at the

end of one civil list period be carried forward to meet official expenditure in later years. This is what will now happen. We expect, nevertheless, that there will be a prudent balance at the end of the period, amounting to around one year's spending at that time. That will enable unforeseen eventualities to be met, should any arise. If they do not, the surplus will be available to fund civil list spending during the current reign from 2011 onwards.
The Queen, supported by other members of the royal family, carries out a wide range of duties on behalf of the nation as head of state. The arrangements that I have announced will provide proper support for Her Majesty in that role. They also reflect the principles that Parliament has embodied in legislation, and which I am happy to reaffirm. They support continuing improvements in efficiency by ensuring that financial and management responsibility go hand in hand; and they are in keeping with the honour and dignity of the Crown, the importance of the role carried out for the nation, and the high regard and affection in which the Queen and the royal family are held.

Mr. William Hague: May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for giving me advance notice of it, and express the Opposition's support for what he has announced? We shall, of course, study the trustees' report carefully, but we remain of the view that the Civil List Act 1972 set out the best framework for the determination of civil list expenditure. We therefore support the future arrangements that he has announced. They are in line with the principles set out in the previous statement on the matter by the then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher.
Does the Prime Minister agree—I am sure that he does, given his statement—that the record of the past 10 years provides clear evidence that the civil list is spent wisely and that the royal household has been managed well? Is it not the case that the royal household has made the most of its resources, has been willing to adapt and has supplemented the revenue from the civil list with the prudent use of other sources of income? Does he further agree that the opening of Buckingham palace to the public, the royal family's commitment to pay income tax and the publication of an annual report on royal expenditure have demonstrated a commitment to openness and a willingness to change?
The new arrangement reflects the climate of low inflation, which the Government inherited from their predecessors. However, we—and more particularly Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family—are being asked to take on trust that it will continue. As Members on both sides of the House know, economic forecasts should always be treated with some scepticism. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree that the trustees should lay a further report if it became clear during the coming decade that inflation was significantly outpacing the Chancellor's forecast?
We on the Conservative Benches believe that the value of the service given by the Queen and her family to our country far exceeds any sum granted in the civil list. We are in no doubt of the importance of the monarchy to our national life. As Members of Parliament, we swear


allegiance to the Queen with pride. We hope and pray that she and her family will continue to give service to our country for many years to come.

The Prime Minister: I am in the happy position of being able to agree with virtually everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said. He is right. If inflation were to outpace the Chancellor's forecast, we would lay further matters before the House, but I am happy to say that we do not anticipate that eventuality.
I point out, in addition to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, that the Queen receives about 80,000 guests a year, that there are 2 million visitors to the royal homes and palaces, and that the royal family undertakes about 3,000 engagements. That is a pretty impressive work record by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I also welcome the fact that an amicable agreement has been reached between the royal household and the Treasury, which will put things on a stable footing for a further decade and enable the royal family to fulfil their duties over that period. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the fact that, despite rather mixed headlines at the moment, he clearly has not lost his sense of humour by choosing 4 July to make the announcement.
Given that one Sunday paper has been speculating on which members of the Cabinet fall into the category of roundheads and which fall into the category of cavaliers, may I unusually declare myself, asking some specific questions on behalf of the third way, as a Jacobite?
Given that the royal household has accepted the need for on-going transparency in these matters, can the Prime Minister confirm that the civil list over the next 10 years will be fully accountable? Can he indicate what efficiency expectations, in common with every other public Department and office, the Government have factored into the equation for the settlement that has been reached? Equally, what level of inflation have the Government relied on as a projection for reaching the conclusions that they have with the royal household? Finally, what level of income does the royal purse derive from the opening of Buckingham palace to the public for a fee? It would be helpful if the Prime Minister clarified those matters and added to the bonhomie of this royal occasion.

The Prime Minister: I cannot clarify the very last point now for the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly ensure that he receives that information. As for his other points, the inflation assumption is the Government's inflation target. As for the savings that will be made, the £7.9 million is itself a saving, as it represents a static cash sum and is, therefore, over the years, reducing in real value. Additionally, we expect about £25 million to be taken from other categories of public spending and transferred to the civil list as a result of the savings and surplus that have been made.

Tony Wright: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do no service to the monarchy by not asking sensible questions about how it operates? Is it not really quite extraordinary that, under the 1972 Act,

even when the civil list generates a huge surplus, as it clearly has now, we are not able to amend the amount downwards, but can only push it upwards? Is it not true that that applies to no other category of public expenditure? Is it really a very sensible way of proceeding?

The Prime Minister: It is correct that there is no power in the legislation to reduce the payment. On the other hand, the same thing can effectively be done both by keeping the sum static for 20 years—as it will have been by 2011—and by being able to transfer to civil list expenditure items of other public expenditure. There is a significant saving there. I think that a 55 per cent. real-terms reduction over 10 years is quite significant. I also offer my hon. Friend the suggestion that, in terms of legislation, I can think of bigger priorities.

Mr. David Davis: May I commend the Prime Minister on the partial increase in financial transparency that will be achieved because of the report that he is publishing today, and congratulate the royal household on the savings that it has achieved in the past decade? However, the Prime Minister's figures for the next 10-year projection do not assume any efficiencies. One of the side effects of not changing the sum is that no relevant statutory instrument will be put before the House, and that the House will therefore not have a chance to debate or review the figures once they are in the public domain. That raises a rather important constitutional consideration.
The monarchy's ultimate constitutional function is to be the final check on the Executive. It seems a little odd, at least, that these figures are arrived at by agreement between No. 10 Downing street—or the Treasury—and the palace. Does the Prime Minister think that he could improve that process if the civil list itself, like grants in aid, were open to parliamentary scrutiny and to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General?

The Prime Minister: I understand why the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, raises a pretty hardy perennial in this debate. I should like, however, to explain my understanding of the history of the matter. A decision was made, I think in 1972, that the civil list, which is the expenditure most closely associated with Her Majesty, should be treated differently. I think that that was decided after a contemporary Select Committee report had indicated that that was the best way of dealing with the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that other grant in aid expenditure and other expenditure, amounting to about £30 million, is subject to the normal rules. However, it was thought to be right and in keeping with everyone's interests that the expenditure most closely associated with the Queen should be treated differently. I think that he will agree—he perhaps acknowledged it, at least by implication, in his initial comments—that this year there is more detail about how the money is spent.
As for debating the sum in the House, it is £7.9 million. I do not know what fraction that is of overall public spending, but I think that it is 0.002 per cent. or thereabouts. Again, I think that there are probably bigger items of public spending to get our teeth into.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: This is a pretty big winter heating allowance. What is so special about this


family that they qualify for £7.9 million instead of 75p? If the Prime Minister really wants to save money, the answer is to kill two birds with one stone by shipping them off to the millennium dome, where they can have a zone apiece.

The Prime Minister: Well, let me answer that in two ways. First, I know that my hon. Friend would not want to let the opportunity to talk about the 75p go without also mentioning the winter allowance, the free TV licences and the £6.5 billion of extra expenditure that the Government have made available. However, in respect of the civil list, it is also worth pointing out that the figures that I gave earlier are quite impressive—3,000 engagements undertaken on behalf of the royal family, 80,000 guests and 2 million people coming to visit. The Queen is our head of state. Whatever their views about the monarchy, most people believe that she does a very good job. She is held in great affection by the people.

Mr. William Ross: I suppose that I am one of the few people in the House who are always suspicious when the leaders of the two main parties agree, even when the issue is one such as this. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the present arrangements will last for only as long as the current monarch is on the throne? Will new arrangements be made every time a new sovereign ascends the throne? Will he also confirm that the Crown estate and the hereditary revenues of the Crown contribute upwards of £130 million to the revenues of the nation every year? Are the sums involved in that to be frozen in the future? Will any surplus that arises over the next 10 years go directly to the royal household?

The Prime Minister: In respect of the hon. Gentleman's first point, the settlement is for 10 years. I am pleased to say that the answers to potential queries that I have are based on the happy assumption of Her Majesty's continuing good health.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the surplus. Any surplus at the end of the next 10 years will be the subject of the next statement, which will be made in the year 2010. However, any such surplus can be used in a variety of ways. In particular, it can be used for special situations with regard to the royal household. It can also be used in the way that it is being used this time—to cover some other expenses from other areas of public spending. At present, I do not think that it is wise to speculate about how large that surplus might be, or what it could be used for.

Mr. Alan Williams: My right hon. Friend has indicated that this money, like the money that we provide for the palaces and for royal travel, is used to support the monarchy. There can be no objection to that, but the way in which the money is monitored does raise an objection. Uniquely, the money is not audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is not monitored by the Public Accounts Committee, nor by Parliament.
It is all well and good to hark back to 1972, but that was some years ago—I had been in the House only a few years at that time. We now live in days of greater transparency, and transparency about the palace money and travel money has done no harm. Would not it

therefore be appropriate to bring this money into line and make it accountable to the National Audit Office and to the Public Accounts Committee?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the money is carefully overseen by the royal trustees, whose report this year gives a lot of detail about how the £7.9 million is broken down and about the various items of expense that it covers. The report also includes the numbers of employees within particular salary bands—a matter that has been raised on previous occasions. The report this year, therefore, contains a great deal more information than it normally does. Given the sum of money involved and what has been a very substantial reduction in real terms, I think that we can have every confidence that the money is being managed well and properly.

Sir Peter Tapsell: As new Labour tends to cheapen and vulgarise almost anything that it touches, will the Prime Minister do his very best to try to protect the institution of monarchy in this country from the influences of his spin doctors?

The Prime Minister: I think that that institution probably suffers more from prejudiced and rather unpleasant statements such as that. Given that I delivered the statement in perfectly good faith, and that I paid tribute to Her Majesty the Queen and the work that the monarchy does, I should have expected a slightly more gracious intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Following from the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), as the civil list is public expenditure, has the Prime Minister thought about allowing the National Audit Office to audit the accounts and letting the Public Accounts Committee investigate the result? That would be in line with practice on other public expenditure and would make the whole matter more accountable and, indeed, acceptable to Parliament, because people could then see that there was nothing to hide.

The Prime Minister: There really is nothing to hide, as one can see from the detail that is published today. A decision was taken about this at a very early stage. There has always been this question, because other expenditure is subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the PAC. However, it was considered that the expenditure most closely associated with Her Majesty should be treated differently. I do not think that that is unreasonable, particularly in light of the fact that more detail has been given here today than has been provided before, and it breaks down literally every item of expenditure.
Because the vast bulk of the expenditure is on salaries, there is not a great deal to investigate other than seeing the salary levels. We have put the salary bands in the report so that people can see exactly how many people are employed, and how many are employed in each band. I am second to none in my enthusiasm for the work of the PAC, but I think that it will find that there are bigger issues to look into.

Mr. David Rendel: If, as the Prime Minister says, the civil list expenditure is that most


closely associated with the monarch, why are car transport costs included in the civil list, whereas air and rail transport costs are not? Why is one set of costs more closely associated with the monarch than the other?

The Prime Minister: It was decided at the time, back in the 1970s, to treat some of those expenses differently. Air travel and train travel costs, in particular, are incurred when heads of state go abroad and visit different countries. We can argue about the allocation of these costs and the way in which the expenditure is separated, but the actual amount set out for car costs is of a completely different order from those in relation to air and train costs. Again, because those tend to be more closely associated not with personal expenses, but with those incurred as head of state on visits, it was decided to make the allocation in that way.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Prime Minister agree that his statement is rather an understatement of the amount of money that is actually spent on supporting the royal family, and that he should include all the other expenditure within that amount? Since the royal family will end this 10-year period with an even larger surplus than they have at present, is it not outrageous that they are still charging the public to visit Buckingham palace throughout the summer? At the very least, access to the royal palaces should be free. In addition, as I understand that the Cabinet has had a frank and free discussion about royal accommodation, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the possibility of relocating the royal family to some smaller and more modest accommodation in the future?

The Prime Minister: No, I cannot agree with that. As for the other expenses, such as grant in aid for the upkeep of palaces, those figures are all set up and subject to National Audit Office and PAC scrutiny in the normal way. The additional costs that are now to be borne by the Queen's civil list will amount to about £2.5 million a year over that period of 10 years—that is £25 million, which is a significant amount. If we look at this overall, to have kept the Queen's civil list static, in cash terms, for 20 years is a pretty good recommendation.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Nothing that the Prime Minister said in his statement came as a surprise. Why, even on this issue, when there is no controversy between the parties, could the Prime Minister and his advisers not resist spinning it to the newspapers and the "Today" programme first before coming to the House?

The Prime Minister: That is simply not the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] It is not. The timing of the statement is precisely the same as it was back in 1990.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: There are 58 royal bedrooms in Buckingham palace and no fewer than 78 royal bathrooms. Nine occupied royal palaces receive grant aid, leaving aside Sandringham and Balmoral. Given that the civil list helps to run occupied royal palaces, is there not a very real question about how many palaces the royal family needs to discharge its functions to the state?

The Prime Minister: Buckingham palace is, of course, a palace and there is likely to be more than one bathroom.

I think that I am right in saying that the palaces receive more than 2 million visitors a year, which is a significant number. I would simply point out to my hon. Friend that since 1993, all the annuities paid to members of the royal family, apart from the Queen Mother and the Duke of Edinburgh, are reimbursed by the Queen.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Prime Minister rightly paid tribute to the work of the royal family. Will he join me in paying tribute to the people who work at the palace and to the considerable dedication that they show? He knows that more than 70 per cent. of the civil list is spent on salaries. Will he confirm that nothing in this settlement will result in any redundancies?

The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, it will not, but obviously I do not know what plans the royal household may have. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the vast bulk of the money is for salaries, which have to keep pace with inflation and, what is more important, with earnings in the public and private sectors as well. If he considers the figures overall, he will see that the royal family and the royal household have done a pretty extraordinary job of keeping the cost down.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Prime Minister recall our debate about the loyal oath, in which 150 Members, I believe, expressed the desire to have the choice of an alternative form of oath—to the country rather than the monarch? He will be aware that many hon. Members qualify the oath that they take. As at least a third of the population believes that we should be considering an alternative form of head of state, and a growing group of young people feel that way, why can we only discuss these matters once every decade? The debate on the monarchy and the way in which it should be modernised is happening outside this place. Should we not also debate it here?

The Prime Minister: The House is entitled to debate whatever it wants and the oath is, of course, a matter for the House, but I do not believe that it should be changed. On the civil list, I also believe that the fact that I, as the Prime Minister, am making a statement on £7.9 million-worth of expenditure is opening up the matter for debate considerably.

Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the statement as far as it goes, which is probably the best that can be achieved against the background of the Civil List Act 1972. Was it not a serious misjudgment 10 years ago when the House agreed a settlement for a 10-year period with inflation built in at 7.5 per cent., which has resulted in the building up of a huge surplus? If it were allowed under that Act, should we not be recommending a cut this afternoon?
Furthermore, will the Prime Minister undertake a review of royal taxation to ensure that all members of the royal family are subject to the same tax rules as everyone in the House and in the country? Why is the Queen allowed to pay tax voluntarily rather than it being mandatory? How can the right hon. Gentleman explain to my constituents who are on income support why there are all these tax loopholes which, for example, allow the


monarch to avoid inheritance tax when possessions are passed from one monarch to the next? Is it not time for a review of royal taxation as well?

The Prime Minister: I must correct the hon. Gentleman on two points. First, the Queen pays tax voluntarily and has done so for several years, and I think that that shows the way in which the monarchy has adapted and modernised. Secondly, on inheritance tax, we are talking of sovereign-to-sovereign assets, which are inalienable assets belonging to the monarchy. It would be wrong to treat those differently from the way in which they are treated today. I think that most of the hon. Gentleman's constituents would agree that that is the case.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: How does the reduction in costs that the Prime Minister has announced today compare with the performance of non-executive presidencies in the rest of Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman re-examine the question of having a royal yacht to boost our exports and inward investment, in the face of the damaging uncertainty of the Government's policy on the euro?

The Prime Minister: We might have known that the Tory party would find some way of getting an attack on Europe into a statement about the Queen's civil list. I do not have the faintest idea about the costs of presidencies abroad. As for a replacement for the royal yacht, I shall take that as yet another public expenditure commitment on behalf of the Conservative party.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree that, without the 1972 Act, he would, in effect, be announcing a third decrease in the civil list because of the transfer of £2.5 million in a year. As the monarchy has become increasingly popular over recent years and will, no doubt, become even more popular with the reduction in cost to the Treasury, is there any lesson that the right hon. Gentleman can learn for the funding of his own office?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted that, as a result of the efficiencies that have been made and, of course, as a result of lower inflation, there is a 55 per cent. real-terms drop over 10 years. That is an indication not just of the efficiency itself, but of the fact that we are now going to use the surplus to incorporate another £25 million of expenditure. It is a great tribute to the way in which the monarch's civil list has been managed. That is probably the right and the most sensible thing to say.

Football Hooliganism

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about football hooliganism.
In my statement to the House on 19 June about the disorder perpetrated by England supporters in Charleroi and Brussels, I said that we would urgently consider whether further measures should be introduced so as to improve the effectiveness of court orders against those convicted of football-related offences, and whether to introduce powers in respect of unconvicted football hooligans against whom there was other good evidence. I should now like to tell the House about the conclusions of the review that we undertook following events in Belgium and about the legislative and other proposals that I will be commending to the House.
The House and the country know all too well of the events in Charleroi and Brussels that shamed England's national game and national reputation, and resulted in the arrest of 965 British nationals and the deportation of 464 of them. A very small number of those originally arrested now face trial.
For some years, the widely accepted view has been that football hooliganism abroad is perpetrated by a relatively small minority of known football troublemakers. Measures discussed and approved by the House over a 15-year period have largely been predicated on that assumption. The blunt truth, however, which has become very clear from events last month, is this: football hooliganism abroad is no longer confined to a small minority of known troublemakers. There is now strong evidence of a larger number of England supporters getting involved in violence, drunkenness and disorder; few of them are known in advance to the police nationally as football-related offenders.
As I told the House on 19 June, the policing operation for Euro 2000, against known football hooligans, was largely successful. Of the 1,000 such known offenders on the lists provided by the National Criminal Intelligence Service to both the Belgian and the Dutch authorities, our information is that most either did not travel or were denied entry to the host countries. Thirty were arrested, detained in or deported from either country. However, of the 965 who were arrested in Belgium and Holland, we know that 409 had previous convictions, including convictions for violence.
Against that background, the House will, I believe, appreciate the need for measures to be drawn more widely than has been proposed even in the recent past. I have specific legislative proposals, but the issue runs wider than legislation alone and requires the active co-operation of all involved in football at every level in England.
The legislation that I propose to the House has four key elements. First, we propose to combine the domestic and international football banning orders that are made by a court following a conviction for a football-related offence. We currently have about 400 domestic bans of both kinds in force, but only 106 international bans; only 106 individuals can currently be prevented from leaving the country to attend matches abroad. In future, everyone who receives a banning order will be subject to both domestic and international bans.
Secondly, we propose that, save in exceptional circumstances, everyone who receives such a ban will have to surrender their passport while major overseas games are on. Courts currently have a discretion to impose such a condition when they impose an international football banning order. In future, that will be the norm for the new combined orders.
Thirdly, there is the proposal for civil process, similar to that for the anti-social behaviour order, for a football banning order. This was included in our consultation paper published in the autumn of 1998, and has been actively supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Under this, the police could propose a football banning order to the courts where they believed that it would help to prevent violence or disorder in connection with football matches. However, I now believe that this order should be more widely available than hitherto proposed. Under the new scheme, therefore, it will not be necessary that the person in question should have been convicted of a football-related offence, or indeed of any offence, though plainly any convictions for violence of whatever kind would be very relevant evidence. The police would of course have to have sufficient evidence in every case on the balance of probabilities that the test set in the legislation was met. That evidence could come from abroad, and it might date from before the proposed new law comes into force.
Fourthly, I propose that the police should have a new power effectively to prevent a person from leaving the country where they believe there may be grounds for making a banning order. There would be a power of arrest in that respect, and a breach of the direction would be a criminal offence. When the police made such a direction, the person concerned would be summonsed to a magistrates court to decide whether a banning order should be made. The value of this power will be that when people arrive at a port or airport and they give grounds for suspicion that they are out to cause trouble or are likely to do so, the police will be able to make quick inquiries. They will then, in appropriate circumstances, be able to prevent embarkation at short notice, where it would not be possible to go through the procedure of applying to a court for a banning order before the person left the country.
Those, then, are the main legislative measures that we are seeking, although the legislation will include other minor measures. I am satisfied that they are compliant with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Let me now deal with the time scale for this legislation. I have already had constructive discussions with the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, and I am grateful to both for their co-operation. The official Opposition are already on record as saying that they will support any moves in Parliament to restrict English football hooliganism. The next international game for England will be the one against France in Paris on 2 September. It would plainly be preferable if the legislation could be put in good order for it to be on the statute book by the time the House rises at the end of this month.
However, I well recognise that all Members of this House and of the other place, quite rightly, take their responsibilities for scrutinising legislation very seriously.

Three of the key measures proposed have been well aired in principle in the past. The fourth has not. In any event, the effectiveness of any legislation comes down to its detail. To combine speed with careful scrutiny, I therefore propose to proceed as follows.
A draft Bill will be made available in the Vote Office for all hon. Members and Members of the other place by the end of this week. I shall discuss its detail with the Opposition parties and hold an all-party meeting early next week for any right hon. and hon. Members of this House and of the other place who have a view on the Bill. We shall also consult outside interests and take account of the conclusions of that process in the version of the Bill that is presented to the House. All the process will be subject to discussion through the usual channels as soon as possible to see whether there is scope for the Bill to have a very speedy passage through both Houses, even possibly before the recess.
Legislation is only part of the answer to the wider problem. I strongly welcome the Football Association's commitment to seek life bans from the home grounds for any England fan convicted of hooligan behaviour, or against whom there is hard evidence of such behaviour, at Euro 2000 or in future. I hope very much that all clubs affiliated to the FA will support their national association in its initiative.
There is however much more that can and must be done to confront the culture from which hooliganism grows. Last week, I met representatives of the Football Association. They themselves recognise the need to take a hard look at ticketing, at travel, at stewarding arrangements, at more effective action against displays of racism and xenophobia at matches and outside, and at closer co-operation with supporters' groups—all with the aim of making support for the England team abroad more attractive to families and to decent supporters, who are currently kept away by the threat of hooliganism. I have asked Lord Bassam to chair a working group, which will involve a wide range of partners from the football world who are committed to make changes for the better in these important areas.
I hope that what I have said will demonstrate to the House our determination to use all the means at our disposal to get rid once and for all of all the dreadful consequences and the obnoxious taint of football hooliganism. The Government have given and will give a lead, but we can succeed as a nation in changing the culture that gives rise to football violence only if we in England are able to claim that the problem has truly been solved. I commend these proposals to the House.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that the necessity to rush through this legislation in such haste is entirely the result of his own and Lord Bassam's vacillation and delay? Will he please tell us why, when we invited the Home Secretary, before Euro 2000 even took place, to consider legislation, and said that we would support emergency legislation, he did not then take up our offer, and has indeed spent the last few weeks not taking up that offer? Why did he not adopt the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), made as long ago as 1998? Why did he—or, for that matter, Lord Bassam—not follow through the very clear statement of the Member for Sport, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), when she said that,


although she could not adopt measures in the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), she would nevertheless consider introducing a Government measure? That was in May 1999.
Why does not the Home Secretary admit that the only reason why we now have to hurry this legislation through Parliament is that he did not take action in due time? Is he aware that the England 2006 campaign director has said that the events in Belgium—which might perhaps have been prevented, at least in some measure, had our suggestions been adopted originally—have damaged our chance to secure the world cup? And will the right hon. Gentleman admit that his own dilatoriness has contributed to that?
Rushed legislation can be very bad legislation, and the Bill contains some very sensitive and very significant proposed measures that will indeed need thorough scrutiny—not least the new police power to prevent people leaving the country. We cannot pass such a measure in one day. If the Government wish to give this measure a high priority, the Opposition will support giving it a high priority, but it will mean that the Government will have to reorder their overloaded programme to ensure that this high-priority Bill gets the scrutiny that it deserves, so that it may proceed. After all, the Home Secretary has neglected this issue and the Government have overloaded their legislative timetable. If they now wish us to give priority to this Bill, they must find a way to do so that guarantees proper scrutiny. That means due time to examine the Bill and to make amendments.
The House is well familiar with Government Bills arriving with 500 Government amendments added at a late stage because they have not been drafted properly. We cannot proceed on a rushed basis with a Bill that has serious implications for civil liberties in this country. We will support the right hon. Gentleman in getting the Bill through and we will support speeding up the timetable, but we will not—[Interruption.] The attitude of Labour Members is a disgrace to the duties of the House. We will not let the Bill go through without due scrutiny both in this House and in the other place.

Mr. Straw: As I told the House a moment ago, I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the co-operation that I have received. However, she always adopts a rather different tone in the House.

Miss Widdecombe: Yes.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady agrees. She asked me why we did not pick up her suggestion of co-operation on emergency legislation, which she made at the beginning of the second week of June, just before the Euro 2000 competition began. First, I remind the House that, a week before that, the official position of the Conservative party was that no change in legislation was necessary. On 30 May, a spokesman for the Conservative party said:
What the Government must now do is to show that they are prepared to invest the necessary resources…to track down and convict those who commit football violence. Only once these measures are fully used—
that is, the existing measures—
can we start to assess whether there is a need for further legislation.

It was only a week later and a few days before the competition began that there was any promise, even on paper, from the Conservative party to support us in taking legislation through. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady did not ask for it two years ago; we are talking about the pledge that she made two days before the competition began.
The right hon. Lady has said that we should be very careful about rushing through legislation. I agree with that. The simple fact of the matter was that, when she made the offer, it would have been impossible to get any decent legislation on the statute book in time for it to have any effect on whether people who were intent on violence and disruption could travel to Euro 2000. The truth is that if she is not now prepared to deliver in a four or five-week time scale, she certainly would never have delivered in the time scale that she had in mind then.
The second point I make to the right hon. Lady is that the main reason for introducing these measures—including the fourth measure, which has never been before the House, and a considerable strengthening of the third measure—is directly to do with the nature of the football hooliganism that we all saw in Brussels and, in particular, in Charleroi. As I told the House and as the whole House understands, in the past the basic assumption behind all football-related legislation was that there was a hard core of football hooligans who were known in advance to NCIS. They could be identified in advance and, by a variety of direct and indirect legal means, they could be kept away from international games. That was true.
However, we face a new problem. As I told the House in the statement on 19 June and in the debate on 20 June, we of course review things in the light of changing circumstances, and that is exactly what we have done. The reason for introducing the legislation now is that we face a new and more serious problem, which became perfectly apparent in Charleroi and Brussels. We intend to deal with it, while the Opposition, as far as I can judge from the right hon. Lady's confused statements, are simply trying to make mischief out of it.

Mr. Joe Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that responsible Members of the House will congratulate him immensely on the legislation that he has announced, and which is long overdue? Is he aware that England have to play Germany this winter which, without that legislation, was going to be a recipe for another combat zone?
Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to go further, as these incidents happen abroad, not at home, and a lot of them involve the unlimited alcohol and duty-free that people drink while travelling to the games? Will he consult the European Community countries on their different methods of policing—from the hard-line water cannons in Belgium, to the laid-back people in Copenhagen and to the police in Marseille who put video screens on the beach—to arrive at an attitude common to all countries on the banning of alcohol and the regulation of travel?

Mr. Straw: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says and am grateful for his support for these measures.
We do our best to share experience. At the beginning of 1998, during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union, I hosted a major conference of all


European Union Interior Ministries and football associations on how better to control football hooliganism. That is a big problem for England, but it is also an international problem. It must be pointed out that, although 250 people of English origin were arrested in Charleroi, about 130 of German origin on whom the German passport bans plainly did not operate were also arrested.
There is a strong relationship between this violence and people who get drunk. In particular, we must learn lessons from the way in which the authorities in the Netherlands sought to contain those who wished to drink too much by the provision of low-strength alcohol in very small glasses. Although that caused laughter beforehand, all the reports suggest that it turned out to be an effective way of reducing alcohol consumption.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his early warning of the statement. 1 agree that one clearly cannot legislate away football hooliganism or hooliganism related to football. Given that the Home Secretary told us last week that 30 per cent. of young people between 18 and 39 now have convictions against them, does he accept that proposing sweeping measures to prevent people travelling to football matches is not easily justified, as so many of them already have a previous conviction?
The Home Secretary's first two proposals, as I understand them, would have the support of my colleagues in both Houses, subject to the possibility of regaining one's passport if one needs it for urgent family or business reasons. The remaining two proposals go far beyond conventional impositions on the rights of the citizen, so we cannot offer support for them at the moment, either in this House or the other place, and will seek to persuade the Home Secretary that there is a better way of proceeding.
Has the Home Secretary considered that, instead of those two proposals, the proper way to proceed is a proposal that would prevent people from travelling if they had convictions for violence and, if necessary, if there was reasonable cause to believe that they might commit violent offences? Exceptionally, will he place in the Libraries of both Houses advice to Ministers from Law Officers suggesting that that proposal is compliant with the European convention on human rights?
Big issues are raised which suggest that restricting freedom to travel may not be ECHR-compliant. What opportunity does somebody who, under the Home Secretary's proposals, could be stopped by a police officer, have to test their case in the courts in time for such a challenge to be relevant? Why would somebody not be entitled to have a warrant issued before they were stopped, as the Home Secretary or I would have if someone were searching our houses? Before going into property, police normally go to a magistrates court to seek a warrant for such action.
The record of hasty legislation in this place over the past 20 years shows that it normally ends up as bad' legislation. Unless both Houses can have the necessary time to scrutinise the proposals and to secure the rights of

the many, as well as the few, it is possible that not all the Home Secretary's proposals will get through the House this side of the summer, even if they get through later.

Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his co-operation. It is true that about 30 per cent. of people under 30 have convictions. In the debate on 20 June, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) asked for an analysis of the nature of the convictions of the 464 people out of the 965 who were arrested, and who had previous convictions. We are still doing that analysis, but it looks as though there is a greater preponderance of people with convictions for violence in that group than there is in a similar cohort of the general population.
I entirely accept that the House has to act proportionately in legislating. Not only are we required to do so by the Human Rights Act and our obligations under the European convention on human rights, which we have had for 50 years, but it is right and proper that we should do so. In the past, it has not been judged proportionate to take action, or to give the police powers in any circumstances, to turn people away at ports, because the mischief identified has not been sufficient to justify the action. In the light of what happened in Belgium, I now believe that the mischief is great enough to justify that action. However, the hon. Gentleman, like any other Member of the House, is entirely correct to say that he wants to read the Bill's small print before he makes a judgment. I, too, have been in that position. It would be wrong for the House to buy a pig in a poke, and I am not suggesting that it should do so.
The football banning order will be similar to the anti-social behaviour order. Whether or not people like such orders, they are consistent with this country's traditions. We are working carefully to ensure that there is proper, traditional oversight of banning orders and the operation of the fourth proposal, which is new. It is not a peremptory power, of the kind that I believe was operated in Germany, for the police simply to turn people back on an officer's say-so. A police officer will need to have reasonable and sufficient grounds for believing that a person should be subject to a banning order, first to stop him, and then to seek a banning order, for which there will be a reasonably quick court process.
The hon. Gentleman asked why a warrant could not be issued in advance. The police will not be able finally to identify the person concerned until they have stopped him. We are introducing the equivalent of a warrant by ensuring that there is supervision by a judicial bench as quickly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about hasty legislation. All Members who have been in the House for any length of time know that legislation can be introduced sensibly and speedily, but if speed turns into haste, a Bill may not be properly or adequately worded. I hope, and it is only a hope, that our discussions and the drafting of the measure will ensure that the proposal becomes law before the end of July, but I recognise that Members on both sides of the House want to examine it carefully. If there is a choice to be made between content and haste, the content must take priority, even if we face delay in getting the legislation through. I am sure that the whole House


will agree that it must be passed by the end of this Session and, if possible, by the end of July. I will make myself available at all times.

Mr. David Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend like to comment on reports that extreme right-wing organisations have been involved in organising some of the trouble abroad? Does he accept that there are serious implications for civil liberties which it would be foolish to deny? Bearing in mind the scenes that we have seen on television and that he has mentioned today, it is difficult to see what alternatives there are to the proposals that he has outlined. Those scenes have undoubtedly disgraced our country, and people abroad understandably ask why we cannot keep our thugs in order.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I am afraid that, in my judgment, there is now a yawning chasm between the average football fan who attends club games and England games at Wembley, and the so-called fan who goes abroad in alleged support of this nation. As someone who has been a long-term football supporter with his family, I have seen a change very much for the better over the past 15 years. Clubs now cater for families, many more women attend club games and there is a great effort—not entirely successful, but considerable—to stamp out racism and xenophobia in grounds and away from them. However, I am afraid that a big proportion of so-called England supporters abroad express strongly racist and xenophobic views. They are not remotely representative of the majority of England fans at home. We have a big problem tackling them, and I believe that a Bill may help.

Mr. Simon Burns: Better late than never. I warmly welcome the four legislative proposals that the Home Secretary has announced today, especially as one of them is along the lines that I have long advocated. On the point that he was making to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I urge him to consider that it is crucial to overcome and minimise the culture of violence and obscenity by enforcing the existing legislation, such as the public order measures and the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, to crack down on those mindless morons and the extreme right who use racist chanting and other obscenities at football matches to inflame people, thereby doing so much damage to this country. Such chanting is both disgraceful and distasteful.

Mr. Straw: I express my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for all his efforts during the past two years to have such legislation put on the statute book, and also for the constructive proposals that he made in his speech on 20 June. He will know that we have taken careful note of the suggestions that he made in the House and outside. He raises an important point—which, ironically, was raised by his party spokesman on 20 May—about the need properly to enforce the existing legislation. It is not acceptable that only 33 of the 100-odd international banning orders imposed so far include passport conditions, which could have been imposed in every case. That is wrong. I understand that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are applying for such orders, but magistrates are not granting them. That is why we have

had to change the nature of the legislation to ensure that passport orders are granted almost automatically and that other proposals are taken forward as well.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of those involved in the violence had no previous convictions of any kind, so he will understand why those of us who have spent a lifetime opposing racism have considerable reservations about his suggestions, which will give peremptory powers to police officers apparently on the basis of very little evidence. I hope that he will tell the House the rank of police officer who will be enabled to take such decisions and what time scale he is proposing.
Above all, may I tell my right hon. Friend that the history of legislation agreed by both Front Benches and put through the House at considerable speed is extremely sad and unhelpful? I hope that he will reconsider his timetable, because this is a difficult and intractable matter. Before we allow very serious liberties to be put at risk, it is absolutely vital that the House have time to consider every aspect of the proposal, not just some of them, and that we do not respond to knee-jerk bigotry.

Mr. Straw: Of course I understand that the House should be very careful about taking forward into legislation proposals that use the force of the law through civil processes before conviction, but that is by no means unheard of in our system.
The civil courts themselves have many powers of enforcement. The anti-social behaviour order, which has been widely welcomed by Members on both sides of the House and by local authorities and the police outside, is increasingly being used. It makes use of civil process. Good evidence has to be obtained for the order—unfortunately, in many cases, that evidence cannot be only criminal convictions.
There was support for the football banning order from both sides of the House, although it was by no means unanimous. The police may have evidence that may not have been sufficient to obtain a conviction, but that is plain evidence of football hooliganism. For example, there may be available video tapes of people committing straightforward acts of hooliganism in Charleroi and Brussels. If those individuals could be identified, I see no reason why they should not be required to go to court or why the police should not be able to apply for a banning order. They would be given a proper opportunity to answer. Such tapes would not represent evidence that could lead to a conviction, mainly because an extraterritorial offence had been committed, but would certainly be evidence that should lead to an order of the kind that I make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked about the level of police officer who could make what would effectively be a direction to prevent someone from travelling so that a banning order could be obtained. I make this very clear: as far as I understand, these are not the exact powers that the German police have used nor a power of what they call administrative arrest, which leads to no court process at all. We propose that such a direction should be made at inspector level or above.
My other point to my hon. Friend is that it is not true that all legislation that is put through the House at some speed suffers from the defects that she mentioned,


although it is true that some does and some has and that speed creates a greater danger of those defects occurring. I seek to provide a process that involves not only necessarily private discussions with the opposition parties, but a perfectly open system in which all hon. Members are able to take part. There will not be unanimity, but we must see whether there is sufficient consensus to get the measure through before the summer. I hope that that is the case and that I can reassure Members on both sides of the House about its contents, but we shall see.

Sir Norman Fowler: Does the Secretary of State agree that his proposals are similar to those that I made from the Opposition Front Bench in June 1998? Therefore, I obviously support what he has said—given also that the decision would rest with the courts, not the police—but has there not been unnecessary delay in handling the issue? Had those measures been in place, some of the recent troubles might well have been avoided. Will he answer a further point? Does not this issue go beyond football hooliganism and are not those who riot overseas also those who cause problems on Friday and Saturday nights in this country? Frankly, nothing will be done about that until we have more police on the streets and more police detecting those hooligans.

Mr. Straw: I thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion when he made it late in 1998. This is no criticism, but, as he said at the time, it was a proposal for discussion that was not in a form that could have been put into the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We have gone over the history of what subsequently happened but, if he wants to go down that track, I remind him that a whole host of right hon. and hon. Members on his side—

Miss Widdecombe: And on yours.

Mr. Straw: Some, but fewer Labour Members opposed the proposals.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) described the confiscation of passports as "wholly unconstitutional"; the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that the proposals, which were less strong than these, were
the mark of a repressive or totalitarian society;
and the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said:
I am deeply concerned by the suggestion that banning orders should be imposed against people who have not been convicted of an offence.
A whole litany of Conservative Members were not interested in taking the route that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) suggested. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) told the then Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), in respect of the Bill of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, that
he will get no support from his own Back Benchers today other than from the Bill's promoter.—[Official Report, 16 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 495–502.]
That was hardly approbation.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield says that we are dealing with a wider issue. Yes, it is. After seven years during which police numbers have declined, as the

right hon. Gentleman knows, we are investing considerable sums to ensure that numbers increase. Of course resources are important. If the right hon. Gentleman happened to see BBC television news last night and learned what the Sussex police are doing at Crawley, he would be aware that effective measures are taking place in targeting policing to deal with the drunken behaviour that we see in too many of our towns and cities on Friday and Saturday nights.

Ms Claire Ward: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the measures that he proposes. I urge him to continue with the timetable that he has set out. Will he take into account the fact that some hon. Members, especially the maverick tendency on the Opposition Benches, will seek to ensure that the proposed legislation is delayed? They will be the very people who will attack the Government and others if the proposed legislation has not been enacted by September and we see repeated scenes of football hooliganism of the sort that we saw the other week.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those Members who oppose a sensible, speedy but not hasty debate on the proposed legislation will try to ensure that we are not in a position to stop hooligans from disgracing our country and our national game?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks and for her strong support for the proposed Bill and other measures. I hope that we can achieve the timetable that I have set out. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the inconsistency of the Opposition Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was suggesting that we should have introduced legislation within two days of the beginning of Euro 2000. Two days was too long for that. She now suggests that four weeks is too short a time. I hope that, in more thoughtful moments, she will recognise the problem with which we are dealing and the need to get legislation through Parliament by the end of July. Plainly, it would be far better to have the proposed legislation on the statute book, if it is in good order, before the football season starts again in September.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: What the right hon. Gentleman has outlined to the House sounds to me to be a serious curtailment of ordinary civil rights. I doubt whether some of these proposals, particularly the third and fourth elements, as he has described them, are compatible with some of the articles of the European convention on human rights.
The House should not depart from the ordinary rules of scrutiny and inquiry into what is proposed. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can properly get the proposed legislation through both Houses by the end of the month unless he is prepared to suspend much other parliamentary business. Is he aware that this is a serious matter involving civil rights? It is our business to champion such rights, and what I have heard from Labour Members suggests that they are suspending their duties in that respect.

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that what is being put forward is a serious curtailment of human rights. I have said that I am satisfied that our proposals are consistent


with the European convention on human rights and with the Human Rights Act. It is my intention to sign a section 19 certificate to that effect.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked me—I am sorry that I did not answer this particular question—if I would exceptionally make the advice of the Law Officers available. Anyone who has been a Minister will know that it is never the practice to make such legal advice available, any more than legal advice to any other individual or corporation is ever made available. Moreover, the legislation does not require that the Attorney-General certifies the compatibility of any draft Bill before the House, but requires that the Minister responsible for that Bill should make that certificate. That is the proper way to proceed.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) spoils his case by suggesting that the normal processes of legislation should never be abrogated in any way. Like many of those on the Opposition Benches, his memory started on 2 May 1997. He has sat in the House long enough, as has the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, to remember many occasions under the previous Administration when those processes were compressed, sometimes into a far shorter time, with far less open consultation, than I am proposing.

Mr. George Mudie: May I associate myself with the remarks and question from my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? I quietly ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the case that he has made. As we are discussing a tournament that ended less than 48 hours ago, the review seems rather rushed. Although I support proposals 1 and 2, we have heard the point that has been made about proposals 3 and 4. I wonder how my right hon. Friend will justify those proposals to Labour Back Benchers. In his statement, he gave the impression that he had had discussions with the Opposition parties and that they were compliant with moves to push the legislation through urgently. In view of the mood of those on the Opposition Benches, I urge my right hon. Friend to re-appraise those discussions and reconsider rushing the legislation through Parliament.

Mr. Straw: I understand the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. As I have made clear, I am not intending to rush the legislation through in the terms that he suggested. I have already said that, if a choice ultimately has to be made between haste and content, content must be the determining factor. I hope that he accepts that, if we can achieve proper speed—I do not know whether we can—if we can achieve the legislation by the end of July and it is in good order, that would be to the benefit of the country as a whole.
I note what my hon. Friend says about proposals 3 and 4, which I announced today. The third proposal has, albeit on a narrower basis, achieved wide support on the Labour Benches. As to the fourth proposal, of course I will consider what my hon. Friend says, and I hope that, in turn, he will look at the small print of the proposal. He is likely to be reassured by that. On co-operation, we look forward to the usual co-operation with the usual channels.

Mr. David Davis: I agree with the Home Secretary on one issue: the reputation of

this country abroad is extraordinarily important. Even more important, however, is the foundation stone of the British justice system, which, as I understand it, is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty—proven guilty on criminal standards under criminal process. What the Home Secretary is suggesting is a civil process leading to criminal sanctions, and rather fundamental criminal sanctions. Most free societies give their citizens the right to leave that society. That is pretty fundamental, and that is what the Home Secretary is striking down. I will oppose the legislation during its progress through the House—not delay it, but oppose it by argument.
On the question of undue haste in passing legislation that affects individual liberty, will the Home Secretary give thought not just to the process of the House, but to the interests of organisations outside which will want to comment closely on his proposals in the coming months?

Mr. Straw: On the last point, I said in my statement that we would take account of views expressed outside the House, as well as inside the House. It will come as no surprise to the right hon. Gentleman or the House to learn that we have already informally consulted the police organisations and NCIS about the proposals, as well as the Football Association, but there are others that have an interest in the matter.
There are some people—I respect their views, but I do not happen to agree with them—who take the right hon. Gentleman's view that civil process should never be used to deal with bad behaviour of the kind that we are talking about. That opinion was voiced during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act in respect of anti-social behaviour orders. Our point was that the existing law provided, for example, for evictions and for all kinds of orders to be made by civil courts on the basis of a process that uses the civil burden and standard of proof, but, having been made, if they are then broken they are subject to effective criminal sanctions, including custody for breaching injunctions. This is no different in principle. Moreover, as with the anti-social behaviour orders, where one of the banning orders is broken, that is a criminal offence and the breach of the order would be subject to the criminal standard of proof.

Mr. Derek Twigg: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. It is interesting that the Opposition had four or five attempts at legislation during their 18 years in power, but still failed to stop violence and disorder. It is a subject that Opposition Members seem to want to shy away from.
Let us get down to what has been proposed today. I welcome everything in my right hon. Friend's statement, but, as has already been mentioned, the Bill of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made it clear that magistrates had various powers that they never used. Does my right hon. Friend know why the magistrates did not carry out the actions that they should have?
Secondly, why do we again see a mass deportation, albeit of many innocent people, but obviously of some people who are not innocent, without their being taken to court in the countries where the offences were committed? Clearly, unless such countries take firm action, people will go there and think that they will get away with it again.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the withholding of passports on the occasion of big games, an important part of his proposals today? I think that it will be very effective.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to call attention to the Opposition's confusion. As I have already indicated, they develop an extraordinary total amnesia—only when it suits them, however—about all events and responsibilities for actions taken before I May 1997. On other occasions, they want to nitpick at the record of the previous Conservative Government and bring that into comparison but, whenever it is convenient, they deny that they were involved in any way in what happened between 1979 and 1997.
My hon. Friend talked about the problems of so-called mass deportation. Many people who are used to the British system of justice will not really know administrative arrest, which is used in some European countries but not others. It is a concept by which police arrest people, detain them without charge for a period of around 12 hours and then either release them or, as in this case, deport them. In terms of the existing orders, it certainly would have been easier if the majority of those people had been subject to proper process in the criminal courts, but we have to take things as they are. One of the advantages of the new orders is that, where there is good evidence abroad of football violence by an individual, it can be used to obtain an order in this country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We shall no doubt return to this matter before too long. The House has a great deal of business to get through today and must now move on.

Point of Order

Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In his answer to me after his statement on the civil list, when I asked the Prime Minister why the statement was not news to the House, because the details had already appeared on the "Today" programme and in this morning's newspapers, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was no departure, because it what was what had happened 10 years ago, when such a statement was made before. I do not believe, from the answer I received, that the Prime Minister understood the issue that I was raising. Will you take this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to remind those on the Treasury Bench that it is their obligation to bring statements to the House before they are broadcast elsewhere?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I did not hear the exchanges which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and I would not want to refer specifically to them. Madam Speaker has made it extremely clear that any important Government announcements should be made in the first instance to this House.

Planning (Provision of Affordable Housing)

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow local authorities to stipulate that 50 per cent. of all new housing development should be set aside for affordable housing.
I hope that this is a subject that has broad appeal in many quarters of the House.
In January, the National Housing Federation carried out a survey that revealed the sorry state of affairs that more than half of Britain's population believe that they or their children will not be in a position financially to buy their home in 20 years' time. If we are to change that perception of the future and provide the housing that our country needs, we need massively to increase the amount of affordable housing in the UK, especially in property hot spots such as London. My Bill would not mandate local authorities to do things, but allow councils effectively to set a quota that half of the housing developments in their area should consist of affordable housing and ensure that that rule guides councils when they give planning permission to developers seeking permission to build.
Many people's lives are blighted by the lack of affordable housing, and we should not presume that the problem is confined to urban areas, such as my constituency. At the weekend, I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and discovered that the issue is significant in rural communities and small towns in her area. Urban, suburban and rural communities throughout much of England face a lack of affordable housing: the same challenge confronts the smallest villages and the biggest towns and cities. I was brought up in Herefordshire: my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) has discovered that almost no affordable housing is being built in large parts of that county, and I know that affordable housing is now entirely absent from the market in the village in which I used to live.
My surgery, like that of many other Members of Parliament, is packed every week with people who are trying to buy a new home or to move to a decent home, but are having difficulty finding an affordable property. My constituency has the largest proportion of electors living in local authority property of any constituency in England. Today, I checked the figures with my local council and discovered that there are more than 13,000 people on the waiting list, of whom 5,000 have no tenancy.
High and rising land values combined with increasing property prices mean that we are pricing many people out of the market. Of course, little local battles can yield results: on the south bank, we had a successful battle over Coin street in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and another over the Cherry garden pier site in the 1980s and 1990s; and battles are being fought to ensure that there are affordable homes around Tower bridge and on the Heygate and Dickens estates in Bermondsey. However, the problem is not merely one of numbers and statistics, but of keeping communities together, making it possible for people to remain where their family has lived for

generations, and ensuring that all communities have the key workers that they need to carry out the basic jobs on which every community depends for its support.
We could have a long debate about the definition of "affordable housing", and perhaps one day we shall. For now, I offer two definitions, the first of which appears in Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions circular 6/98. It states that, for the purpose of planning policy, affordable housing is
Low cost market and subsidised housing…available to people who cannot afford to rent or buy houses generally available on the open market.
The National Housing Federation states that
rents are affordable if the majority of working households taking up new tenancies are not caught in the poverty trap or paying more than 25 per cent. of their net income in rent.
My arguments do not apply solely to council or local authority housing; they apply equally to properties that people take out mortgages to buy, properties in shared ownership and properties that are rented from housing associations, trusts or private landlords. I commend Tower Hamlets council and Wychavon council—authorities in different parts of the country—for taking developers to court under planning law and succeeding in defending the interests of their communities by ensuring that the developers did not pull a fast one and reduce the amount of affordable housing provided.
In London, more and more people exceed the 25 per cent. of net income threshold. The National Housing Federation says that registered social landlord rents in 1998 were unaffordable for more than 70 per cent. of households with one or more persons in work. Between 1979 and 1998, the average rent for council dwellings in London rose by 600 per cent.—three times inflation, which rose 200 per cent. in the same period. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) made that point well in a recent debate.
The general rate of inflation throughout the country has been 43 per cent. in the past decade, but it has exceeded 100 per cent. for housing in assured tenancies. In the past year in London, property prices have risen by approximately a quarter. The average cost of a home in this city is £163,000. The statistics speak for themselves. I do not need to tell any other London colleague, from whatever party, about the crisis that we face.
The position is a boon for property developers; it is heaven on earth for them. However, it is a nightmare from hell for people who cannot afford to remain in the community to which they belong or in which they need to work. In recent years, new housing has often been provided where it is least needed. Homelessness is increasing. Approximately six households per 1,000 throughout the country and nine per 1,000 in London are homeless.
The amount of social housing is decreasing. In 1993, approximately 31,200 social housing properties were completed. In 1999, the figure was 17,500. This year, only 13,500 affordable homes have been completed in England. Yet, according to the best projections, we need approximately 107,000 units every year for the next 10 years. Nearly 85,000 newly forming households, as well the 750,000 people who live in unfit housing, will need affordable homes.
The position is nonsensical. I am not talking about ensuring the provision of  affordable, new-build housing. Approximately 750,000 houses in the United Kingdom


are empty. Many of them are in the wrong places to fulfil the need. That should be tackled. There are 150,000 homeless people. VAT penalises someone who brings old properties back into use; but VAT does not have to be paid on new-build housing.
I want to make an important point about key workers. I shall cite one example of a young woman called Rhian Williams, who is a special needs teacher. She teaches in Walthamstow and lives in Southwark. She earns less than £20,000 a year, and she has said publicly that she will have to move out of her flat at the end of July. It costs £287 a month. She cannot find anywhere else for less than £600 a month. She approached the Church Commissioners, who said that they would love to house her but that there would be a three-year wait. The result is that a special needs teacher, whom we need, will leave London and seek a job abroad. She is typical of many public sector workers who say that rising prices are beyond their control and that it is therefore increasingly difficult for them to carry on.
Unless there are opportunities for the teacher, the nurse at hospitals such as Guy's, the bus driver, the postal worker and the social worker to live here, we shall not have a community with the support that it needs. We are losing 10,000 key workers every year. We have an opportunity to remedy that.
The Green Paper has been issued for consultation. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that we shall enable local authorities to secure a proportion of affordable housing in larger housing developments in urban and rural areas. I welcome the statement from the Greater London Authority that it is about to hold an inquiry on housing, and the new Mayor's indication of support for a 50 per cent. proposal.
I hope that we can have a quota for affordable housing in all developments, not only new developments; a quota for small developments, not only big developments; an obligation on councils to consider the options and, if they wish, to go up to 50 per cent. I also hope that democratically elected local representatives, not developers, will determine what constitutes housing need. We need housing that is determined by need.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Tom Brake, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Paul Keetch, Mr. Andy Love.

PLANNING (PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING)

Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to permit local authorities to increase to 50 per cent. the proportion of housing in any development which is affordable to people in low paid employment or with equivalent incomes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 150].

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill [Lords] (Programme)

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill [Lords]:—

Report and Third Reading

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second of those days.

Proceedings on Consideration

2. (1) Subject to the Speaker's powers to select the amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be proposed, the proceedings to be taken on consideration on each of the two allotted days shall be as shown in the second column of the Table in sub-paragraph (2) below and shall be taken in the order so shown.

(2) Each part of the proceedings on those days shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in the third column of the Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
New Clauses relating to Part I, New Schedules so relating, Amendments to Clauses 1 to 8.
One and one-half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.



New Clauses relating to Part II, other than Clauses relating to access to information.
Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.



New Schedules relating to Part II, other than Schedules relating to access of information, Amendments to Clauses 9 to 20




New Clauses relating to access to information, New Schedules so relating, Amendments to Clauses 21 and 22, 
Four and one-half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.



Amendments to Schedule 1,




Amendments to Clauses 23 to 40,




Amendments to Schedule 2,




Amendments to Clauses 41 to 45




New Clauses relating to Part III, New Schedules so relating, Amendments to Clauses 46 to 54.
Five and one-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.



Amendments to Schedule 3,




Amendments to Clauses 55 to 80

New Clauses relating to proportional representation, New Schedules so relating,
Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.



New Clauses relating to Part IV,




New Schedules so relating,




Amendments to Clauses 81 to 86,




New Clauses relating to Part V, other than Clauses relating to pensions and allowances or to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,




New Schedules relating to Part V, other than Schedules relating to pensions and allowances or to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,




Amendments Clauses 87 to 93.




New Clauses relating to pensions and allowances, New Schedules so relating, Remaining new Clauses other than Clauses relating to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,
Six and three-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.



Remaining new Schedules other than Schedules relating to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,




Amendments to Clauses 94 to 97



Second day
New Clauses relating to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, New Schedules so relating.
Two and one-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day.



Amendments to Clauses 98 to 101,




Amendments to Schedules 4 and 5,




Amendments to Clauses 102 and 103.

Conclusion of proceedings

3.—(1) For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are brought to a conclusion at the time appointed by this Order, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

4. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting.

5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.

6. If on an allotted day a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day or to Seven o'clock—

(a) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion, and
(b) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for the period after Ten o'clock on that day for which sub-paragraph (a) permits them to continue.

7.—(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Supplementary provisions

8. In this Order "allotted day" means today or any other day on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.

9. If any Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order so as to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill under paragraph 1 or 2 of this Order, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

The Bill was in Committee in the House of Commons for more than 40 hours and 16 sittings, following consideration in the other place involving four days for the Committee stage, two for Report and one for Third Reading.

Debate in Committee was conducted in good spirit. It was extremely constructive, and there was a general intention of improving the Bill, which I think was achieved. An informal timetable was agreed, and was used effectively, with no curtailment of debate on any point raised by the Opposition parties. There was no complaint from either side about insufficient time being allocated for debate. Indeed, we had the opportunity to sit more frequently if we needed to.

The time allocated for Report has been discussed through the usual channels. We tabled this motion with a view to ensuring that there was sufficient opportunity, within the overall time provided, to discuss all aspects of the Bill, to which amendments have been tabled by both sides. That approach has also been discussed through the usual channels. I therefore do not intend to take up any more of the time available in discussing how we should organise the business of considering the Bill, and propose that we proceed to do so as soon as possible.

I look forward to another constructive debate today.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I shall speak briefly.
It is true that the motion has been agreed by all the major parties, but I do not want the Minister to run away with the notion that we accept for a moment that six hours


and 45 minutes is enough for us to discuss every clause in this not exactly short Bill—with the exception of that dealing with the section 28 issue, which will be dealt with tomorrow. It was in the spirit of trying to be helpful to the House, as always, that we agreed the motion.
As the Minister was good enough to concede, the Committee stage was conducted in good spirit. There were a few good jokes here and there, at least from our side. The Government, of course, lost almost every argument in Committee, but, sadly, none of the votes. The Minister was also good enough to confirm that we took a wholly constructive attitude. We supported the good things in the Bill and tried to make them better, and we opposed the bad. Above all, we tried to improve the Bill as a whole.
The Minister mentioned amendments, which, from her point of view, was bad salesmanship. A total of 438 Government-inspired amendments were tabled in the Lords, and, subsequently, nearly 400 more were tabled in the Commons Committee. At this late stage, the Government have tabled well over 100 new amendments—115, according to my arithmetic—again, to their own Bill. No wonder the Minister said on Second Reading that the Bill was not yet finished.
Things are going from bad to worse, as we shall see as the debates develop. Labour Back Benchers are queueing up to rubbish the Bill. The Government have been universally criticised over Cabinet secrecy. They face renewed defeats in the Lords on council structures and on section 28. Frankly, the Bill has turned into an embarrassing shambles. It is hardly surprising that the Minister was slow handclapped at the Local Government Association conference last week.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: One advantage of having three children and 10 grandchildren is that I am used to people not listening to what I say. Indeed, some would claim that I have made an entire career of talking when no one listens to what I say, which is why I have been so long in the House of Commons. However, I want to make a serious protest about the growing practice—on the part of not just the Government, but Opposition Front Benchers—of reaching an agreement on timetabling.
The Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons has made a proposal, which has not, as far as I am aware, been debated in any real detail by ordinary Members of Parliament, to move towards the routine timetabling of all legislation. It is important that we put on record what that entails. If both Front-Bench teams agree a timetable—I am talking not about any particular type of legislation, but about all legislation—the right of Back Benchers to move amendments and the right of constituents to ask their individual Members to move an amendment that may not be agreed by their particular party will be, if not grossly circumscribed, then, even worse, lost.
As a democrat, I happen to think that the reason why the House of Commons works—indeed, the reason why our extraordinary system of government in the United Kingdom works—is because it is sufficiently flexible to allow any person who wants to write, to telephone or to

visit an individual Member of Parliament to raise a matter that could form the basis of an amendment to legislation. If that is lost because of an agreement by both Front-Bench teams to get legislation through, irrespective of how many individual Members of Parliament have the right to take part in the debate, we are moving towards a juggernaut system that will destroy many of the rights of individuals in this place and in the UK generally. I am almost coming to dread the words "programme motion" or "the usual channels" because I have been here long enough to know that power always resides in the Whips Offices and with those who agree on the general programming of the material.
In my lifetime, legislation has not necessarily got better. This is not a party point. I think that all Governments are faced with the difficulty that, before Third Reading or, even worse, in another place, large drifts of amendments to Government legislation are tabled by Government managers. That cannot be acceptable.
When I was a junior Minister, the following was drummed into me: give parliamentary draftsmen enough time to frame good legislation, tell them the basis of it, argue with them on the way in which it is framed, bear in mind the general implications of the whole of the legislation and then—and only then—bring it to the House of Commons for debate. That is getting lost. To substitute for that the suggestion, "Well, it doesn't matter because Members have only so long to debate the legislation anyway. If it is not in the form that it will be in law after it is passed by both Houses, that doesn't matter. At some point or another, it can be amended in future." We must stop and think where we are getting to. As a House, we must seriously consider whether we are looking at what we are doing and are confident of the quality of the scrutiny that we are giving legislation. I do not think that that is the case.
The fact that Ministers and the Opposition Front-Bench team do not even feel nowadays that they must get up and defend at any great length the imposition of a timetable motion is in itself revealing. This is a massive Bill. It concerns local authorities across the UK. It has enormous implications. Simply to say that that is a very good reason for curtailing the debate on the various provisions does not seem to follow; it is a non sequitur. The longer and more important the Bill and the more serious the content, the more it should be looked at by all Members of the House of Commons—not just one group and not just from one particular political point of view.
The House of Commons needs very careful scrutiny. It is full of people who have high hopes and high standards, but that does not make them infallible. Civil servants are excellent and take brilliant direction, and we have parliamentary draftsmen who know superbly how to create legislation, but that does not make them infallible.
What we as individual Members of Parliament have to say—I accept that I have said this before; God help me, I may even say it again—is that it is important that the House does not routinely accept timetable motions as though they are the answer. Timetabling is not modernisation, but a retrograde movement. It takes away from the rights of the people of the United Kingdom to have on their statute book laws that work, laws that have been thought about and properly framed, and laws that the citizens themselves accept and want to uphold. When we forget that, we forget why this Parliament exists.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I say hurrah and—to quote a famous 18th-century speech in its entirety—"ditto" to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). However, I shall not follow that 18th-century speech in like measure because, as the hon. Lady said, this is the 35th Bill in this Parliament on which debate has been truncated. The purpose of all guillotine motions, whether agreed between those on the Front Benches or not, is to prevent continuation of debate, and, therefore, in many instances, as the hon. Lady said, to deny hon. Members the opportunity to speak perhaps to their own amendments and to vote on amendments.
With today's motion, the Government hold out the prospect of certainty in the finishing of business and the rising of the House. The motion certainly would enable the House to conclude the debate, if not the votes, at 10 minutes to midnight.
The timetable motion is Government business. It is not being driven by the Opposition, although they have agreed to it. There is clearly a very firm intent by many hon. Members to go down the route of programming legislation. All I want to know about that route is, who ever consults Back Benchers?
I was not told by my Front Benchers that there was to be a guillotine on this legislation. Undoubtedly—I defer to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions on this—Labour Members were fully consulted on it. Undoubtedly, Labour Members who had signed non-Government amendments were sought out, and a calculation was made on whether there would be adequate time for them to speak as the voice of their constituency or of our country. I have no doubt that Liberal Democrat Members fastidiously went through that process. Perhaps I am making a slight criticism of my own Front Benchers for their failure to determine whether this agreed timetable motion meets the criterion required of every motion that binds the House.
The problem, of course, was demonstrated again today. Another piece of legislation has been announced on the hoof; apparently, it is to be completed by July. I should simply like to know what has happened to the Disqualifications Bill.
In truth, we have simply to examine the pattern of legislation in this Parliament to understand why there is a crisis, and the mood seems to be to accept the Government's continual guillotining of Bills. In the very first and long Session of this Parliament, there were 1,901 pages of legislation. In the second Session of this Parliament, there were 1,590 pages of legislation. In this Session, so far—not even counting what the Home Secretary has in store for us—there have been 2,537 pages of legislation. That is putting not a quart but a gallon into a pint pot. Motions such as this truncate the Government's mandate when it comes to consideration of important Bills, and hon. Members must reflect on what the Government are doing to them.
The Minister said that the 40 hours spent in a jolly little Committee upstairs covered all the dimensions of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, that does not tally with the number of Government amendments tabled in Committee, in the Lords and now on the Floor of this House. Those amendments amount to a huge number of additional pages of legislation on top of the two and a half thousand

already brought before the House this Session. They reveal that the Government have not even prepared the legislation.
The system is breaking down. The Government write legislation as it goes through the House, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made admirably clear. The practice is improper, but yet again the House is being marched to a guillotine.
The motion contains an element that strikes against the function of Back-Bench Members. Paragraph 3 is entitled "Conclusion of Proceedings". All hon. Members want to table amendments on matters about which they feel strongly, and hope to get an opportunity to speak to them in the ordinary course of business. However, I draw the House's attention to the terms of this agreed timetable, of which paragraph 3(1) states:
For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are brought to a conclusion at the time appointed by this Order, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others).
Paragraph 3(1)(c) makes a special category of
the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown.
Paragraph 3(4) states:
If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
That means that one vote will cover almost all Government amendments to the Bill. No other amendments will be taken, regardless of how much they represent the opinion of Back-Bench Members from the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties. The motion gives the Government power to abolish all the subsidiary amendments that Back-Bench Members may want to raise. The tightness of the guillotine, which allows just six and three quarter hours for debate, will not even give us an opportunity to speak.
Many hon. Members have commented that being jumped with legislation means that we cannot anticipate how we fulfil our role or function in the House. There were 52 Bills in the first Session of this Parliament—one Bill a week. Invariably, people interested in matters such as civil liberties, over which the Home Secretary rode so gaily a few minutes ago, bring their concerns to the detailed examination of legislative proposals.
I apologise to the House for the fact that I tabled amendment No. 221, to clause 60, only yesterday. It appears as a starred amendment, because it was tabled too late to be selected for debate. In a reasoned, measured debate, there would have been every possibility that I would get to speak to the amendment, which deals with matters of freedom of information and the Bill's creation of a criminal offence without any test of harm.
I am speaking up today, along with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, in order to stand up for Back Benchers. We should not give the Government the right to mandate all the amendments necessitated by the fact that they did not draw up the Bill correctly in the first place. That amounts to writing legislation on the hoof. The Government will get their amendments, but what about the voice of every diligent Back Bencher in the House who feels that he or she has a contribution to make or argument to put that may command a majority of the House?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend speaks with immense knowledge of the way the


House operates, and with a fervour that can be picked up in all parts of the House. Is he not saying, in essence, that this guillotine motion—and it is typical of what might happen in the future—is making the role of Back Benchers in the House totally irrelevant and handing over control to the usual channels? Am I not right in saying that the House is a place in which Members of Parliament, whatever their role, should be heard, and that they are being denied?

Mr. Shepherd: I agree with my hon. Friend. He has only to refer to paragraphs 3(1)(c) and (4) to see that the motion gives enormous power to the Government. In addition, there is another device, to which my Front-Bench colleagues agree. What is so startling is that debate on guillotining Bills should be included in the time allotted to the first group of amendments. The objective is quite clear, and we have had enough of it—it is to stop people discussing the fact that they are being denied the right to speak to their own amendments, and even to vote on them. It has happened time after time.
One can see Ministers' eyes glazing over—they think that government is far too important a job to be troubled with the mere consideration of Bills. This is Henry VIII at his very best:
Everything I say shall be law.
Indeed, we will not even vote on this because of paragraphs 3(1)(c) and (4) of the motion.
It is pretty futile to ask the Government what they are doing in the shape and form of these motions, but I do so nevertheless. Ultimately, they are striking not just at me but at their own Back Benchers. We have seen it time and again—for example, with the debate on air traffic control. That indicates the prospect for people who may feel strongly on issues in this Bill.
The House does not even discuss whole parts of Bills. The Disqualifications Bill that emerged from here has not re-emerged anywhere else, but we have had debates on Lords amendments in which only three and a half out of 12 groupings have been reached—what a discourtesy to the House of Lords. What does it imply when measures such as this go back to the House of Lords and it sees that we have not discussed important amendments?
Those were the remarks that I wished to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and, if I may say so, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
I oppose the timetable motion, notwithstanding the fact that I understand that it has been agreed with those on the Front Benches. That does not, from my perspective, give it any greater validity. We need first to understand how frequently this process takes place. I believe that this is

the 34th timetable motion in this Parliament. That contrasts markedly with the practice in previous Parliaments.

Mr. Shepherd: I would suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that 35 Bills have been guillotined, with well over 50 motions to secure the objective.

Mr. Hogg: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. The number is even greater than I anticipated. The contrast, therefore, with previous practice is even more marked. I understand that under the Government headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), there were some 17 timetable motions, while under the Government led by Lady Thatcher there were some 34 timetabled Bills in the 11 years that she was Prime Minister. We are seeing an extraordinary increase in the practice and it is wrong.
First, I want to emphasise and endorse what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said. She clearly articulated the anxiety that ought to be felt when these timetable motions are proposed. Her first point was on the redress of grievances. All of us, as Back Benchers, have an obligation to find suitable opportunities to express the anxieties, uncertainties and grievances of our constituents. That is one of the foremost duties of a Member of Parliament, although in this legislative sausage machine it is becoming less easy to perform. One way in which one does so is by tabling amendments to Bills, which give one the opportunity to focus on individual cases. The consequence of timetable motions, which provide a tight framework for debate, is that we cannot debate the amendments that we have tabled to provide the focus for our constituents' grievances. The hon. Lady is right about that.
The second reason why I deprecate this use of timetabling is that it is the inevitable product of too heavy a legislative programme. The reason why we have such motions—apart from the unwillingness of the Labour party to sit late—is because of the enormous legislative programmes. No one supposes for a moment, however, that this country is better governed because we have this large corpus of law; indeed, we are much worse governed. If we have to have timetable motions to get the vast body of legislation through, the solution is not to have these motions but to have less legislation.
My third point—it was also the hon. Lady's—deals with the willingness of the Government to legislate on the hoof. The hon. Lady has much experience in government and she will forgive my saying that so do I. Both of us would agree that when we started in this place, Governments were much more disciplined about preparing their Bills in advance. That is not to say that we did not sometimes legislate on the hoof, but we tried not to.
It is an absurdity that 115 Government amendments are tabled for discussion—I think that about 400 were tabled in Committee, which is also an absurdity. Also, the Bill has already been discussed in the Lords. What sort of government is this? It is thoroughly incompetent and bad government and we should not acquiesce in it by approving timetable motions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred to paragraph 3 of the motion, which enables Government business to be thrust through regardless but also prevents our ensuring that we discuss and vote on other matters.
My hon. Friend also pointed out that the time that we are taking to debate the motion will be taken out of the time for the substantive discussion. If the House does its duty by protesting against the motion, the first part of the Bill will barely be discussed. The timetable motion will prevent it from being discussed. The Government's answer is simply to say, "Well, don't talk about the timetable motion." That is a scandal, but it does not surprise me because hon. Members who were in the House last night heard the Minister with responsibility for prisons say in terms in his reply, "We, the Government party, are not interested in hearing what the Opposition have to say. Why should we be?"
The Government do not want the House to debate the matter. Indeed, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, who is in charge of the Bill, has just left. She may have fled—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] No, I see that she is below the Gangway with her back to me. I suppose that is courteous enough—at least she is here.
However, the point is that we are so constructing the timetable motions that we cannot debate the substance of the Bill. We have 50 pages of amendments. There are 16 groups for discussion. There are about 242 amendments, of which 115 are Government amendments. Any time for voting comes out of the overall time. We can be entirely certain that whole wedges of proposed legislation will not have been discussed in this place.
Let us remember that this is the only occasion when the House as a whole has the opportunity to discuss the detail of the Bill. Second Reading is not a substitute for that. The Report stage is when the House as a whole can discuss the legislation that will bind our constituents and our fellow citizens.
This is a scandal. I know that the Government propose to introduce more and more such motions, but it is our business, as the Opposition, to say that this is tyranny; we should play no part in it.

Ms Oona King: I welcome this debate on timetabling, believe it or not; although I do not welcome its direction or logic. I shall speak only briefly, particularly as I do not want to do the House a discourtesy, because I cannot remain for the whole debate.
I cannot help but pick up on the main thrust of the arguments put forward by various Members that, if we have timetabling and programming of Bills, we undermine parliamentary scrutiny. If one wants to undermine parliamentary scrutiny, the best way to do so is to scrutinise matters in the middle of the night. That is what we do all the time.
Many hon. Members are sick to death of that ludicrous and antediluvian procedure; we certainly welcome moves to change it. I understand some of the concerns that are being expressed; they are genuine points, but my fundamental point is that they stem from the fact that, historically, opposition in this place—whether from the official Opposition or from the ranks of the Government—has only one weapon: time. Often, that results in time wasting.

Mrs. Dunwoody: In my time, I have been known to oppose my own Government—impossible though that may seem. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a difference between carefully reading what is written in

legislation and automatically opposing it? She assumes that only those who oppose the content will want to read what is in the legislation. I assure her that that is not the case.

Ms King: I assure my hon. Friend that that was not my assumption at all. I should like another assumption to be undermined—that there can be parliamentary scrutiny only if debates are allowed to proceed in an untimetabled fashion.
A further assumption is that Back Benchers, too, would not benefit from more timetabling. I would be astonished if I knew what was coming up and when. My goodness, how revolutionary that would be. I could plan what I wanted to speak on and when—the parts of the debate on which I wanted to make points that were important to my constituents.
I said that I should speak only briefly, so I shall conclude by reminding hon. Members that, earlier, it took 30 minutes to make two points. All MPs—including Back Benchers—will have to realise that we need to show a little more self-control and an ability to make our points more succinctly.

Mr. Eric Forth: The House is now in distinct danger of demeaning itself and denying its essential role in the legislative process. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who have apparently signed up to the timetable motion have not explained to me why they have done so. They may or may not do so subsequently, but it is beyond me to understand why they have connived in this grubby little parliamentary manoeuvre. That is a matter for them, but they cannot expect me to support it, and nor do I.
The Minister boasted that the Bill had spent 40 hours in Committee. Forty whole hours—I am supposed to be impressed. Frankly, I am not. I remind the few Labour Members who have been here more than three minutes that in the good old days when they were in Opposition and they took their job seriously, in the early 1980s, it was the convention that a large Bill was in Committee for approaching 200 and certainly 150 hours before a guillotine motion was even contemplated. That expectation has come down over the years, and that may or may not be correct, but the fact that the Committee spent 40 consensual and jolly hours apparently not doing a very good job of scrutinising the Bill should not impress those of us who were not members of the Committee when we reach Report stage. So we can dismiss that as an unsatisfactory and specious argument.
If we look in detail at this ghastly guillotine motion agreed by those on the so-called Opposition Front Bench, we see that the large number of measures contained in each group of amendments in the first set of groups gives rise to the extraordinary phenomenon that, were we to debate the first group—the structure of the guillotine will effectively diminish the time available—we would have six minutes for each of the items within that group. The group contains some important provisions about Wales, local authority powers, consultation and many matters which in normal circumstance would require proper debate and consideration.
When I say six minutes for each item, that is six minutes for the entire House and for all Members present to make the contribution that they want to make. That is


not including the time that will be taken if the House decides to express its view in a Division. I know that Divisions are unfashionable on the Government side, but some of us still cling to the idea that casting a vote in this place as well as saying something is of some importance. The consensus between the two Front Bench teams may have eliminated that possibility, but some of us still hold it rather dear. We may want to divide the House as often as possible just to cling on to the power as long as we still have it, but I shall leave that idea to colleagues to contemplate.
The second set of groups of amendments is even more extraordinary. By my calculation, one minute is allowed per item selected by the Speaker for debate and consideration by the House. That is one minute in total for all Members of the House present who wish to participate. Even if we accept the strictures of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) to be brief, she surely agrees that a minute to debate an entire item is just a little restrictive.
We shall be discussing executive arrangements, overview and scrutiny arrangements, matters such as the resignation of a deputy mayor and the definition of the role of a mayor and of assembly members. I have picked just a few matters at random. Those are matters that surely justify more than a minute's debate, but apparently not. It has been agreed that a minute per item is all that is required in this ever more modern House of Commons. Those who have put their names to this measure apparently agree with that.
For the next two groups of amendments, three minutes per item has been allowed. For the one after that, one minute has been allowed. For the one after that five minutes, and for the one after that, three minutes. Then, bizarrely, we are apparently to spend two and a quarter hours on homosexuality. I leave the world outside to make a judgment about that priority. It strikes me as odd to say the least that we should dwell on homosexuals for two and a quarter hours while skipping lightly over tribunals, membership of the standards committee, investigative procedures, proportional representation, and procedures and timing for elections. All of those will be swept aside in a matter of minutes, while we dwell on homosexuals at length in a leisurely manner.
This cannot be serious, as one of the people I have been watching over the weekend, Mr. McEnroe, would no doubt say if he was here. I find it saddening and demeaning for the House that we are being asked to support a measure as grubby and disgraceful as this. I do not give it my support. If the House were to divide, I would want to vote against it. If the House does not divide, I want it to be very well known that I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in utterly opposing the motion and its like.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I will be very brief. I believe that in the very near future, if not during this debate, the House will have to decide whether there is any meaningful constitutional role and responsibility for the genuine Back Bencher in the House.
I believe that the position of Back Benchers is being increasingly eroded and made more and more difficult, and more and more irrelevant. As a Back Bencher of some

standing in the House I deeply regret that, because it is not just a matter of Opposition and Government. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has so often said in the House, with great commitment and great knowledge and great experience, there are divisions within the political parties in the House; and I believe that, if the House is to have any meaningful role in the eyes of the electorate at large, those views that differ within a party, let alone those on which there are differences across the House, should have a proper opportunity for expression in this place.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) spoke about wanting to be able to plan ahead as to when she was going to speak and to plan the other duties that, rightly, she has in the House. I must tell her that, given the volume of legislation—which was so well conveyed by my right hon. and hon. Friends—she is most unlikely to be called; and she was not elected to the House merely to trot through the Lobby in support of her party. Similarly, I remind those on the Conservative Front Bench that I was not elected by the people of Macclesfield to trot through the Lobby in support of everything that my party says either in opposition or in government; that is not what the House is about.

Mr. David Davis: I just want to present to my hon. Friend evidence in support of his argument that the problem is not the fact that the Opposition's main weapon is time, but the progressive tendency of all Governments over time to compress Report stages. In the 1970s, multi-day Report stages were the norm; today, they are the exception. That is why half of all the guillotines and timetable motions in the past 15 years have occurred in the past three years, under the present Government.

Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he, too, has much experience of the way that the House operates. He has been a Minister. He currently chairs perhaps the most important Select Committee of the House and, I believe, is well regarded from all parts of the House for the contribution that he has made to the deliberations in the House. The point that he makes is absolutely right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was absolutely right to point out the amount of legislation that the House is being expected to deal with. In this Session of Parliament alone, we are dealing with more than 2,500 pages of legislation. That is outrageous; and for the only opportunity that the whole House has to discuss the nitty-gritty of a Bill to be constricted and to be prescribed as is proposed in the motion before us is, I believe, absolutely outrageous.
I say to Ministers, there is also a severe problem in this prescriptive motion, because the Government could seek to persuade their own Members to speak at length on amendments, thus preventing the real, crucial issues that are of concern to the Opposition ever being debated.
The Government are neutering the House of Commons.

Ms Oona King: rose—

Mr. Winterton: They are raping the House of Commons. They are castrating the House of Commons.
They are doing so by denying the right of Back Benchers to contribute, virtually at any stage of the Bill's passage. I do not believe—

Ms King: The hon. Gentleman suggested that timetabling is not necessary and that I want it because I need time to prepare for a speech. But earlier, I spoke after 30-seconds notice. He said that the timetabling motion is outrageous and that the Government are castrating the House.
However, has he noticed that not a single woman is on the Opposition Back Benches? Unpredictability further discriminates against women. That is outrageous.

Mr. Winterton: I have to tell the hon. Lady that, of all the people in the House, I most value the fact that the House is accessible to women Members of Parliament. I should know; I am married to one. She came into the House on her own merit and she speaks for the Conservative party on an important matter.
As the hon. Lady is more than aware, many things take place in the House other than the debate that is currently taking place in the Chamber. I shall not comment on who is present and on what sex they are. All I can say is that Conservative Members believe fervently in genuine debate.
The motion will deprive us of the opportunity to debate the issues and of influencing those on the Government and the Opposition Front Benches. I think that the House will rue the day that this motion is passed, as it will be because of the Government's huge majority. However, representatives of the Opposition parties are putting down markers that the purpose of the House is being undermined and destroyed.
I regret the fact that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have agreed to the motion. It is an abuse of the House and I support the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. It might embarrass the hon. Lady, but I must say that she is a fervent and stalwart believer in democracy and parliamentary democracy. It is a pity that more Labour Members are not prepared to take the same stance. I congratulate her, as she as been congratulated by my hon. Friends. I only wish that there were more like her in the House.

Mr. Graham Brady: It is very difficult to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) but, as ever, it is a great privilege. I endorse everything that he said.
I want to speak briefly to underline the important warning that was given at the outset of the debate by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who raised the concern about the rights of Back Benchers. I am particularly moved to do so because of an experience that I had a few weeks ago in relation to the Transport Bill, which was also timetabled. A complete absurdity took place. I tabled an amendment which I was told had the support of Ministers, and I knew that it had the support of Members from both sides of the House and of all the major parties. However, that amendment could be neither debated nor voted on because of a timetable motion.
We are in precisely the same position this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has tabled an important amendment that merits debate and consideration. However, that amendment cannot be debated or considered, and that is bad for the House of Commons. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, it is also bad for our country and our democracy. We are not far from considering the important deliberations of the Modernisation Committee on the timetabling of legislation, so it is vital that all Members, particularly Back Benchers, understand what we stand to lose if we proceed with the further timetabling of legislation.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) committed an error that is often made when making the argument for timetabling all legislation. She confused that argument with the one about the hours that Parliament sits. We are not talking about what time of day or night we hold our debates, and it is always possible to have debates on more than one day if it is necessary to do so to avoid sitting late. However, if we timetable all legislation, it is certain that the rights of Back Benchers to influence legislation and the rights of ordinary citizens to have their views and concerns expressed in the House of Commons will be vastly diminished. That will be regrettable and it will greatly damage our proud parliamentary democracy.
I was heartened to hear the excellent contributions from those Members on both sides who warned of the consequences of what is being contemplated. I only hope that all Members start to hear those important warnings before it is too late.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Although I accept that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have come to an arrangement with the Government, I have enormous reservations about the guillotine motion that is being discussed. It is an admission by the Government of the enormous work load that they are trying to push through this place in a short time. People will wonder why the House of Commons will rise on 28 July and return on 23 October, which is one of the longest recesses that there has ever been. That means that the time that we have to discuss, scrutinise and improve legislation will be truncated. Yet, the number of amendments that the Government have tabled shows that they believe that this Bill can be improved.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) seems to believe that the Report stage exists merely for the Opposition to delay the Government getting their way. That is not what it is about. We have been sent here by our constituents to consider and to improve legislation, so that the Acts that we put on to the statute book are as good as they possibly can be.
A full debate is not just an opportunity for Opposition Back Benchers. It also allows Government Back Benchers to scrutinise the Bill. The problem with a timetable motion is that my contribution even on this motion is being shortened. Because of the guillotine motion, I am a less effective Back Bencher than I otherwise could be. [Interruption.] No, we are all less effective. The role of


Parliament has been diminished by the motion. It is not about the Executive getting their legislation through; it is about the weakening of Parliament, and the weakening of Parliament weakens us all.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill [Lords]:—

Report and Third Reading

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second of those days.

Proceedings on Consideration

2. (1) Subject to the Speaker's powers to select the amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be proposed, the proceedings to be taken on consideration on each of the two allotted days shall be as shown in the second column of the Table in sub-paragraph (2) below and shall be taken in the order so shown.

(2) Each part of the proceedings on those days shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in the third column of the Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
New Clauses relating to Part I, New Schedules so relating, Amendments to Clauses 1 to 8.
One and one-half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.



New Clauses relating to Part II, other than Clauses relating to access to information.
Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.



New Schedules relating to Part II, other than Schedules relating to access of information,




Amendments to Clauses 9 to 20




New Clauses relating to access to information, New Schedules so relating, Amendments to Clauses 21 and 22,
Four and one-half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.



Amendments to Schedule 1,




Amendments to Clauses 23 to 40,




Amendments to Schedule 2




Amendments to Clauses 41 to 45




New Clauses relating to Part III, New Schedules so relating, Amendments to Clauses 46 to 54.
Five and one-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.



Amendments to Schedule 3,




Amendments to Clauses 55 to 80




New Clauses relating to proportional representation,
Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this

New Schedules so relating,
Order.



New Clauses relating to Part IV,




New Schedules so relating,




Amendments to Clauses 81 to 86,




New Clauses relating to Part V, other than Clauses relating to pensions and allowances or to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,




New Schedules relating to Part V, other than Schedules relating to pensions and allowances or to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,




Amendments Clauses 87 to 93.




New Clauses relating to pensions and allowances, New Schedules so relating, Remaining new Clauses other than Clauses relating to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,
Six and three-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.



Remaining new Schedules other than Schedules relating to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,




Amendments to Clauses 94 to 97



Second day
New Clauses relating to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, New Schedules so relating.
Two and one-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day.



Amendments to Clauses 98 to 101,




Amendments to Schedules 4 and 5,




Amendments to Clauses 102 and 103.

Conclusion of proceedings

3.—(1) For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are brought to a conclusion at the time appointed by this Order, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

4. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting.

5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.

6. If on an allotted day a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day or to Seven o'clock—

(a) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion, and
(b) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for the period after Ten o'clock on that day for which sub-paragraph (a) permits them to continue.

7.—(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Supplementary provisions

8. In this Order "allotted day" means today or any other day on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.

9. If any Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order so as to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill under paragraph 1 or 2 of this Order, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 8

POWER TO MODIFY ENACTMENTS CONCERNING PLANS ETC: WALES

'.—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (6), the National Assembly for Wales may by order amend, repeal, revoke or disapply any enactment to which subsection (2) applies so far as that enactment has effect in relation to a local authority in Wales.

(2) This subsection applies to—

(a) section 49(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990,
(b) section 2 of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995,
(c) section 84(2)(b) of the Environment Act 1995,
(d) any other enactment (whenever passed or made) which—

(i) requires a local authority to prepare, produce or publish any plan or strategy relating to any particular matter, and
(ii) is specified in an order made by the Secretary of State under this subsection.

(3) The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to—

(a) all local authorities in Wales,
(b) particular local authorities in Wales, or
(c) particular descriptions of local authority in Wales.

(4) The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to a local authority only if the National Assembly for Wales considers—

(a) that it is not appropriate for any such enactment as is mentioned in that subsection to apply to the authority, or
(b) that any such enactment should be amended so that it operates more effectively in relation to the authority.

(5) The power under subsection (1) to amend or disapply an enactment includes a power to amend or disapply an enactment for a particular period.

(6) An order under subsection (2)(d)(ii) which specifies any enactment may provide that the power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to that enactment only if the National Assembly for Wales complies with any conditions specified in the order.

(7) In this section "enactment" includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978).'.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 6—Exercise of power under section 5—
—(1) A local authority may submit a proposal to the Secretary of State that the power under section 5 should be exercised in relation to that authority in accordance with that proposal.
(2) The Secretary of State may be regulations make provision for or in connection with the submission of an application by a local authority under subsection (1) above.


(3) Regulations under this section may include provision—

(a) for the information required in any application;
(b) for a local authority to show it has the capacity to give effect to the proposals;
(c) for a timetable for consideration of a proposal;
(d) for consultation with representatives of local government upon the proposals;
(e) for independent assessment of a proposal;
(f) for reasons to be given when an application is unsuccessful.'.


Amendment No. 16, in clause 5, page 3, line 21, at beginning insert—
'( ) A local authority may apply to the Secretary of State to amend, repeal, revoke, or disapply an enactment (whenever passed or made) which it considers prevents or obstructs it from exercising its power under section 2(1)'.
Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 21, after "thinks", insert—
', whether or not on the application of a local authority,'.
Amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 24, at end insert—
'( ) Before exercising the power under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult representatives of local government and such persons as he feels appropriate.'.
Government amendment No. 100.

Mr. Hanson: Clause 6 confers a power on the Secretary of State by order to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply any enactment, whenever passed or made, that requires a local authority to prepare, produce or publish any plan or strategy relating to any particular matter. New clause 8 and amendment No. 100 make provision for the exercise of that power by the National Assembly for Wales. In doing so, they seek to balance the Assembly's legitimate desire to have a degree of control over legislation affecting Welsh authorities while reflecting that this House and Parliament retain primacy in relation to primary legislation.
New clause 8 states that the Assembly may exercise the powers in clause 6 in relation to the plans specified in subsection (2). That covers issues relating to air quality, energy conservation and waste disposal. The plans concern specific policy issues that have been devolved to the National Assembly, and the Government consider that the Assembly should be able to determine how local authorities in Wales should exercise their responsibilities in relation to those issues. The list in subsection (2) is not comprehensive, and subsection (2)(d) provides for the Secretary of State to specify further plans over which the Assembly can exercise powers under clause 6 in due course.
6 pm
Amendment No. 100 makes provision for the role of the Assembly in relation to the powers contained in new clause 6. It ensures that the Secretary of State will consult the Assembly before using his powers in clause 6 in a way that affects local authorities in Wales, and that no changes can be made to the Assembly's own legislation without its full consent. It also provides the Assembly with powers to submit proposals to the Secretary of State in order to make changes to planning requirements which are not contained in subsection (2) of the new clause. The amendments represent a sensible division of responsibility between the National Assembly and Parliament.
Grouped with these amendments are new clause 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), and amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18, which were tabled by the official Opposition. I will potentially listen to the Opposition's points but, briefly, all four amendments are, I hope, unnecessary. Local authorities can already make proposals to the Secretary of State. Indeed, my hon. Friends are actively encouraging them to do so through a range of initiatives. We have made it clear that we will look very closely at any proposals that come out of those initiatives, just as we will consider carefully and respond to proposals from any other local authority. I therefore hope that there is no question of any proposals being ignored.
In the interests of time and given that many of the scrutineers—having argued for a considerable period about scrutiny of the Bill—have now disappeared from the Chamber, I shall commend the Government amendments and hope that the House will agree to them.

Mr. Don Foster: We are more than happy to support the Government new clause, which gives important recognition to the work of the National Assembly for Wales. I wish to speak predominantly, but briefly, to new clause 6. I noted the Minister's rather strange use of the phrase, "I will potentially listen". I think that I am quoting him correctly.

Mr. Hanson: I said, "I will particularly listen".

Mr. Foster: If the Minister checks the record he will see that he said, "I will potentially listen." I hope that he will listen to the arguments and, while I suspect that I may not persuade him to accept the precise wording of new clause 6, I hope that he might be able to add some words of encouragement to the points that I shall raise.
The House will be aware that, under part I, all local councils will be given potentially important new powers on well-being. Liberal Democrat Members welcome those powers very much indeed and, with the Government, recognise that from time to time an existing piece of legislation may get in the way of local authorities exercising those powers in the way that they think appropriate. Clause 5 therefore gives the Secretary of State the power to
amend, repeal, revoke or disapply
enactments that may get in the way of an individual council, all councils or particular groups of councils. We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is to have that power.
Our concern is simply this: it is right and appropriate for an individual council that believes that a particular enactment is getting in the way of it fulfilling its new powers under the well-being clause to be able to go to the Secretary of State and seek his support for changes or revocations of that enactment. On 11 May, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), said:
The Government have established the central-local partnership, a regular and formal meeting of local government representatives and Ministers not only from my Department, but across Government. That is the proper vehicle through which the experiences of local authorities can be discussed and brought to the attention of the Secretary of State.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 May 2000; c. 114.]


We accept that that is one vehicle which enables councils to draw their concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State. However, we believe that there should be a bottom-up approach, in which an individual council should be able to go directly to the Secretary of State and not through the central-local partnership route. New clause 6 merely gives effect to the desire that an individual council should be able to go and discuss its concerns directly with the Secretary of State and seek his support for its wish to make changes to existing enactments.
If the Minister is not prepared to accept the particular formulation of new clause 6, I hope that he will be able to put clearly on the record that individual councils will have the opportunity sought by the new clause, regardless of whether that is included in the Bill or simply a matter of him giving that assurance.

Mr. Simon Thomas: First, I acknowledge the fact that the Government are doing right by new clause 8, which is the correct way forward in the existing constitutional and devolutionary arrangements between the National Assembly and this House. However, there was scope for the Government to go a little further, as the Minister is well aware. He will also be aware that Members of the National Assembly shared disappointment across the Assembly Floor in response to the statement from the Local Government Secretary, Peter Law, this afternoon.
For future reference, it is important to note some areas in which the Assembly is closely involved in local government in Wales, such as European development plans—the process for which will shortly restart in Wales—best value plans, local education plans and so on. By virtue of the fact that local government in Wales is a devolved matter and by virtue of the developing role of the National Assembly for Wales, such matters could in time—and perhaps even now, under the Bill, have come under the aegis—[Interruption.] I am pleased to hear from a sedentary intervention that those things will happen, as it is in those areas that local government most interacts with local people, and through which local people see their values and aspirations put into print in local government documents and reflected in priorities that the National Assembly for Wales may well take forward.
Many people in Wales want and expect to see that sort of thing emerge in the fullness of time from the Bill and the new arrangements for local government in Wales. However, there is some disappointment that the new clause, as presently constituted, does not take a wider approach to some possibilities for devolution and local government in Wales. We were told that, together, the Labour Administration at the National Assembly and the Labour Government in London would always ensure the best possible co-operation at every stage of devolution. That does not always seem to be the way because, for whatever reason—and perhaps the problem is with Government Departments, rather than Government Ministers—there are entrenched ways and, occasionally, a rather slow approach to developing local government in Wales.
The new clause is rather disappointing for what it leaves out. However, it is to be welcomed for what it includes, which is probably the minimum necessary to ensure a balanced set of powers in the Bill. However, from the Welsh perspective it is a rather poor start to consideration of the Bill. I very much hope that the power

that the Bill gives the Secretary of State—which is given to the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, not a Secretary at the National Assembly—will include other plans which, when the time comes, will be used in an active and pro-active way.
Peter Law himself said that he is under the impression that devolution is
outside the radar of the DETR.
On occasion, it is not so much outside the radar as that the radars, seemingly, are not pointing in the right direction. I hope that they will in future.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I have news for the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas): DETR does not possess any radar—at least, not in my experience.
It will not have escaped the attention of right hon. and hon. Members that the time taken by the debate on the programme motion—which is of course taken out of the time for debating these important provisions—was 53 minutes, which is well over half the time allotted for substantive debate on the first two groups of amendments.
I shall deal first with Government new clause 8, although I shall speak primarily to the Opposition amendments. The new clause seems straightforward and is linked with Government amendment No. 100. These matters clearly arise from devolution, and I do not want to get into a debate about that. I am puzzled about why the need for the changes was not spotted before, because it seems fairly obvious.
One loses count, but I think that new clause 8 is one of 115 new clauses and amendments that the Government have tabled on Report. The only good news is that as the Bill bounces back and forth between here and the other place, the Government will have ample opportunity to rewrite it at least a couple more times. Although I do not query the sense of the new clause, I wonder why it has been unleashed on an unsuspecting House at this late stage.
I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will not mind if I do not speak to new clause 6, which has broadly the same thrust as our amendments—which deal with a point that we debated briefly in Committee. We have tabled amendments similar to those that we tabled in Committee simply because Ministers were not prepared to accept those amendments any more than they are prepared to accept these.
As hon. Members have pointed out, the Bill gives the Secretary of State significant powers to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply an Act in pursuance of the new well-being power. Given that the power is meant to be a benefit to local authorities, however, it strikes us as slightly eccentric that the Bill does not make it clear that local authorities should be consulted and that they can apply to the Secretary of State for him to exercise his powers. The thrust of our amendments, like our amendments in Committee, is to allow local authorities to initiate that process and ask the Secretary of State to disapply certain enactments that are getting in the way of exercising the new power.
That approach is supported by the Local Government Association, which said that it would
support a procedure that would allow authorities, by declaration, to state that all or some of their statutory plans were covered by their community strategy.


It was in that spirit that we tabled the amendments in Committee.
If that approach is not a problem, one wonders why Ministers were not prepared to accept the amendments. If they have every intention of consulting local authorities, as they say—we accept what they say, because we know that they are enthusiastic consulters—and of permitting local authorities to apply to the Secretary of State to initiate the process, why not say so in the Bill? I do not see what the problem is. As in Committee, we will not be pressing the amendments to a vote, but there are important questions that the Minister needs to answer.

Mr. Hanson: If, at the beginning of my earlier remarks, I said that I would "potentially" listen, I must point out that I meant to say "particularly", and I apologise.
I hope that I will be able to reassure the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Bath (Mr. Foster). I said earlier that new clause 6 and amendments Nos. 16 to 18 are unnecessary, and I meant that in a positive way. Local authorities can already make proposals to the Secretary of State; indeed, as I have said, we actively encourage them to do so, and both hon. Gentlemen recognised that.
We shall discuss with the Local Government Association and, perhaps, the Welsh Local Government Association, formal arrangements for regular consideration of the use of the powers through the central-local partnership. It is important to highlight the availability of clauses 5 and 6 powers in the statutory guidance on the use of the well-being power and community strategies. That would provide a clear and permanent reminder to local authorities that they can apply to the Secretary of State at any time. I say to the hon. Member for Bath that there is nothing to stop an individual council making proposals to the Secretary of State at any time. I am sure that my hon. Friends will welcome that positive provision for England.
On amendment No. 18 in the name of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, clause 8 already requires the Secretary of State to consult local authorities and local government on proposals to use his clauses 5 and 6 powers. The amendment is therefore otiose. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that explanation.
6.15 pm
The discussion has been interesting and I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). I welcome his positive approach to the Government new clause and amendment. As part of my duties, I watched the statement being made in the National Assembly this afternoon, and I watched with interest the important debate that followed.
Understandably, the Assembly seeks the greatest possible scope to exercise secondary legislation powers. It is the Government's job to propose how the Assembly's wishes can be reconciled with the role of Parliament in introducing primary legislation, and that is what our amendments seek to do. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the door is not closed. The Assembly Secretary, Peter Law, confirmed in his statement that he is and will continue to be in dialogue with my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State for Wales, myself and colleagues in DETR and other Departments with potential involvement in the powers.

Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend said that he understood why the Assembly wanted more powers. Does he think that before it pushes for more powers, it should consider those that it already has, such as the power to make a bonfire of quangos, as it promised to do? Will my hon. Friend confirm whether there has been a bonfire of quangos? If so, when and where did it happen? If not, why has the Assembly not used the powers at its disposal to democratise government in Wales and to increase the power of local government?

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. In passing the Government of Wales Act 1998, there was a desire, which I share, to ensure that we democratise quangos in Wales. He and I, and the House, will have to judge in due course the extent to which the National Assembly has achieved that objective. In response to the Assembly Secretary's statement this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who is also an Assembly Member, made the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), and said that the Assembly should make good use of its existing powers before taking on new ones.
I hope that hon. Members can accept the new clause, and that I have been able to reassure the hon. Members for Bath and for Eastbourne that the Government are willing to listen to them. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion for his welcome for the Government's steps to date. Obviously, we may return to this matter in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2

PROMOTION OF WELL-BEING

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 1, line 18, after "anything", insert—
'including, subject to section 3(2), the raising of money.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in page 2, line 6, leave out "or present".
No. 9, in page 2, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) A charge may be imposed in respect of anything which is done in the course of exercising the power under section 2(1).'.
No. 55, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) Action taken by a local authority outside its own boundaries shall only be undertaken with the consent of the authority within whose boundaries the action is proposed to be taken.'.
No. 11, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
'(7) Nothing in this part shall empower a local authority to engage in trade otherwise than is provided for by the Local Authority (Goods and Services) Act 1970'.
No. 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection 2 and insert—
'( ) The expenditure of a local authority under this Part in any financial year shall not exceed the amount obtained by applying the relevant provisions of subsections (4), (4AA), (4AB), (4A), (4B) and (4C) of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.


( ) All expenditure under this Part shall be subject to the accounting and inspection requirements set out in subsection (7) of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.'.
No. 212, in page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
No. 96, in page 2, line 29, leave out "or otherwise".
No. 15, in clause 4, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
'(4) A local authority may require other public bodies, whether statutory or voluntary, in its area to comply with and to participate in its strategy for promoting or improving the economic social or environmental well-being of their area.'.
No. 97, in page 3, line 20, at end insert—
'( ) No requirement imposed by this section restricts the exercise of the power under section 2.'.

Mr. Foster: I said earlier that Liberal Democrat Members, at least, welcome the new power to promote well-being which the Bill gives councils. There is, however, concern in many quarters about the financial arrangements for exercising that new power. The Government, rightly, are anxious to ensure that councils cannot, under the power, introduce new forms of taxation or other ways of raising money. That is covered explicitly in clause 3(2).
That subsection says, however:
The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to raise money (whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise).
There is concern that the words "or otherwise" provide the Government with a catch-all arrangement whereby any possible means of raising funds to pay for activities introduced under the power of well-being may be proscribed.
The general view is that it would be far better if the Government stated explicitly in the Bill which fund-raising activities they wish to proscribe and allowed local councils to use any other approach that they may deem appropriate. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Government are undertaking a major review of local government finance. At present, there is still considerable uncertainty about the outcome of that review and widespread concern that, although local authorities may be given a new power of well-being, they may find it difficult to raise the funds needed to carry out some of the activities that they believe are important.
Local councils might engage in activities in partnership with other bodies in their areas. Indeed, the Government rightly wish to encourage such activities, but there is confusion about the financial implications if such a partnership were to raise money and produce a surplus. Perhaps the Minister will consider the specific example of a partnership involving a local authority and other bodies that chose to establish a shop in a rural community. Would that shop be permitted to generate a surplus under the phrase "or otherwise" in clause 3(2)?
The purpose of amendments Nos. 95 and 96 is allow the Minister to provide greater clarification of the arrangements. She drew the Committee's attention to the powers under section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and suggested that section could represent the vehicle by which councils could use such powers. It is important that she clarify precisely how she believes that section could be used to deal with the problem.
Amendment No. 97 raises a separate point. Under the Bill, councils will be required to develop community strategies and to have regard to them subsequently in any

activity that they undertake. That makes perfect sense. However, the concern, which is best illustrated by the problems that occurred at the Rover plant in Birmingham, is that a council may wish to propose several activities that it believes are the right ones to undertake in response to a particularly difficult problem, but that they might not be covered in the strategy that the council has developed. Will the council have acted correctly if it develops activities that are not contained in the community strategy? Such activities may lead to legal challenges.
The purpose, therefore, of amendment No. 97 is to provide some comfort to councils that propose activities that are outside the community strategy, but which they believe are in the best interests of the people whom they serve. The Minister gave an assurance in Committee that
it is perfectly legitimate for one to deal with an issue in a way not outlined in the community strategy.
She accepted that the Government had
to create legislation that deals with the real world and the way in which people act…—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 May 2000; c. 96.]
The problem is that councils may act in the best interests of the local community, but legal action may be taken against them for so doing. Amendment No. 97 would therefore provide some comfort for councils that attempt to act in the best interests of the people whom they serve.

Mr. Waterson: I shall of course speak to amendments Nos. 8, 9, 55, 11, 10, 212 and 15. My hon. Friends and I welcome the new power, as does local government in general. However, as we argued in Committee, we think that the Government's proposal is a smoke-and-mirrors exercise because no new money attaches to the new power. Ministers have made it abundantly clear that councils will be given no extra money to exercise the new powers and that, if any of them tries to use existing methods of raising money, it could get into difficulties with the capping regime. We have serious doubts about how effective or helpful local authorities will find the new power.
In the brief time left for this debate, I shall quickly speak to our amendments. Amendment No. 8 would remove the words "or present". As we argued in Committee, we think that councils are primarily elected to look after their local residents and council tax payers and that, under this extremely wide provision, councils would be allowed to use the power for the benefit of many different people and groups of people who happen to be in a council area at any given time.
In Committee, the Minister made the fair point that, every day, many thousands of people travel in and out of the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). However, in more typical council areas, there may be concerns about whether such powers will extend to asylum seekers, travellers and tourists and about how they tie in with the council's other responsibilities. Commuters are one thing, but travellers may bring a series of other concerns.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 deal with the vexed matter of charging. There is a strong feeling across local government that there should be greater freedom to charge for services, especially discretionary services that councils are not obliged to provide. The Minister was broadly


constructive in Committee and talked about consulting widely and drawing the matter into the process surrounding the Green Paper on local government finance. Although we are happy with that up to a point, some issues should be addressed sooner rather than later, because councils face the problem now. Both sides of the Committee accepted that it would be some time before the Government could produce proposals, consult on them and put them into law.
A ray of sunshine is the possibility, which the Minister mentioned in Committee, of using powers under section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, to which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred. The Local Government Association's latest briefing on the Bill states:
We would welcome assurance from the Minister that, if necessary, the Section 150 powers will be used to provide a temporary solution during the interim period while we await a Local Government Finance Bill.
It would be helpful if the Minister gave such an assurance today.
One of the councils that has been proactive on the issue is City of Westminster. In one of its briefings, it states that
there is a compelling and powerful argument that if a local authority is not obliged to provide a service, then it should be entitled to charge for it if it does.
We take the view that that is a fair approach. Lest it be thought that it represents a sectional view held only by Conservative-controlled authorities, in its helpful briefing to the Committee the Local Government Information Unit said:
The recovery of costs, or making a charge for services, will be important issues. We have concerns about the impact of this clause… We believe that councils need the assurance that they will be able to adopt suitable means of recovering their costs.
6.30 pm
Amendment No. 55 is self-explanatory:
Action taken by a local authority outside its own boundaries shall only be undertaken with the consent of
the other authority. That strikes me as perfectly unexceptional, so I was surprised that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, in an otherwise courteous and friendly reply, came up with no conclusive answer. He certainly did not say in Committee that the Government would do something about that matter, which is odd, because the Minister in the House of Lords said that he was happy to go away and look at it. Perhaps the Government's thinking has moved on.
Although time does not permit a detailed debate now, we also touched on whether councils will be allowed to trade under the new power. The Minister's answer seemed to be that they will, but will not be able to charge for doing so. She said that
local authorities will be able to supply goods and services to other bodies, provided that they are satisfied that that comes within the terms of the promotion of well-being. However, they will not be able to charge for them.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 May 2000; c. 76.]
Amendment No. 212, which would leave out clause 3(2), is one of the most significant of our amendments. Again, it is important to recognise that the Minister in the Lords and Ministers in Committee made

it clear that there is no question of extra money being provided for the new power or, indeed, of allowing councils to raise more money through the council tax. There is still a question mark over charging. I shall not quote what the Minister said in Committee at length; in a nutshell, the answer is that councils that want to take advantage of the new power will be required to strip the money out of other budgets for other purposes.
Amendment No. 15 makes it abundantly clear that councils will be the leaders in their communities in taking advantage of the new power and that other bodies will have to co-operate with them and comply with their plans. Councils across the country—of all political persuasions—want that important issue to be clarified in the Bill. I hope that the Minister can give us that assurance in the time available.

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We remain firmly opposed to the idea that central Government should dictate what authorities can spend on community well-being. That is a judgment for authorities and their communities, to which they are accountable. For that reason, we recommend that the House oppose amendment No. 10, which would impose spending limits similar to those that currently apply under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.
The hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) suggested that the power will be effectively limited because it will not of itself allow authorities to raise finance. I can assure the House that the prohibition on raising finance in clause 3(2) is not intended to limit what authorities can do for the well-being of their areas. Local authorities will be able to finance activity under the well-being power from council tax resources, redistributive non-domestic rates, borrowing charges and revenue support grant. In other words, any legitimate income can be spent on the power, but it will not be possible for the power to be used of itself to raise new taxes. That is what we are dealing with here.
We have already accepted that local authorities should have greater scope to charge for discretionary services, but that needs to be looked at carefully. At present, authorities cannot trade, except under the terms of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970.

It being one hour and thirty minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 6

POWER TO MODIFY ENACTMENTS CONCERNING PLANS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 100, in page 4, line 17, at end insert—
'(4A) In exercising the power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State—

(a) must not make any provision which has effect in relation to Wales unless he has consulted the National Assembly for Wales, and
(b) must not make any provision—



(i) in relation to legislation made by the National Assembly for Wales, or
(ii) which has effect both in relation to Wales and in relation to any enactment to which section (Power to modify enactments concerning plans etc: Wales)(2) applies,


without the consent of the Assembly.
(4B) The National Assembly for Wales may submit proposals to the Secretary of State that the power under subsection (1) should be exercised in relation to Wales in accordance with those proposals:.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

New Clause 13

AMENDMENTS TO THE 1972 ACT

'. Schedule (Amendments to the 1972 Act) which contains amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 has effect.'.—[Ms Beverley Hughes.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

LOCAL AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO INTRODUCE EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS

'( ).—(1) A local authority may make executive arrangements for the discharge of certain of its functions.

(2) Nothing in this Part shall have effect in respect of a local authority not making executive arrangements.'.—[Mr. Waterson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Waterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 7—Application for locally developed arrangements—
'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a local authority to apply to propose to the Secretary of State arrangements not provided for by or under sections 10(2) to (5).
(2) In submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State under regulations issued under subsection (1) an authority must:

(a) demonstrate that the proposals have the support of the local government electors for, and other interested parties in, the authority's area,
(b) ensure that the arrangements include provision for the appointment by the authority of one or more overview and scrutiny committees,
(c) explain why the authority considers that the proposed arrangements would be more suitable to local circumstances than a local authority executive as specified in sections 10(2) to (5) and
(d) explain why the authority considers that the proposed arrangements would be likely to ensure that decisions of the authority are taken in an efficient, transparent and accountable way.


(3) In issuing a regulation under subsection (1) the Secretary of State may, in particular, include:

(a) details as to the number or class of authorities to which those regulations apply,
(b) the criteria to which the Secretary of State must have regard in considering any proposals submitted under those regulations. In particular these criteria may include:

(i) the population of the authority,
(ii) the number of members of the authority,
(iii) the nature of the communities in the authorities area, and
(iv) the history of the authority's political control.'.




Amendment No. 1, in clause 9, page 5, line 32, after "authority", insert—
'which determines to adopt executive arrangements'.
Amendment No. 2, in clause 10, page 5, line 40, leave out "The" and insert "An".
Amendment No. 3, in page 5, line 40, leave out "must" and insert "may".
Amendment No. 57, in page 6, line 43 leave out clause 11.
Amendment No. 58, in clause 13, page 9, line 44, after "executive", insert—
'( ) by a committee of the authority.'.
Amendment No. 59, in clause 14, page 10, line 29, after "executive", insert—
'( ) a committee of the authority.'.
Amendment No. 60, in clause 15, page 11, line 31, after "executive", insert—
'( ) by a committee of the authority.'.
Amendment No. 214, in page 17, line 34, leave out clause 23.
Amendment No. 21, in clause 28, page 20, line 38, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Waterson: We now come to what Lord Whitty, the Minister in the Lords, called the central part of the Bill: the Government's intention to impose structures on local government. The avowed intention behind the new clause and amendments Nos. 1 to 3 is to return the Bill to the form that it took on this issue when it last left the Lords and to reflect strong feelings across local government throughout the country.
Amendments Nos. 57 to 60 would deal essentially with what we regard as the Government's bogus fourth option, which they are peddling to local government, although I gather that they had a signal lack of success at the Local Government Association conference last week. There are three central flaws in their so-called fourth option: it still requires the production of a council executive, it seems to apply to whole categories of councils rather than to individual ones—that flexibility is absent—and, inevitably, the say-so of the Secretary of State is required. Amendment No. 214 would remove clause 23—I shall return to that—and amendment No. 21 would remove clause 28(3).
On structures, despite having relatively pleasant debates in Committee—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not in the Chamber—we were subject to an awful lot of sloganising by Ministers. One was the famous slogan of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions: no change is not an option. The problem is that the Government purported to give local government three options for structures—although they now claim to have added a fourth—but, depending on which survey we accept, perhaps 1 or 2 per cent. of councils are remotely interested in having a directly elected mayor. Perhaps that figure will have decreased following the experience of the London mayoral elections.
I have yet to meet any council that seems at all interested in the council manager model, but one may exist. The Minister may wish to quote it or them when she responds. However, the Minister's attitude reminds me of Henry Ford's attitude to car buyers—they could


have any colour that they liked as long as it was black. For the vast majority of local authorities, the Government intend to impose the executive or cabinet model or structure.
A question is bound to be asked, and it has been by Conservative Members and an increasing number of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches. If the Government's idea is such a good one and is so popular, why not ask people to choose? Give them a set of options. If an option really means an option, they can decide, or they can operate their status quo if that works for them. They can operate an updated version of that status quo or other models that they may be able to construct.
I shall refer to the latest briefing on the Bill by the Local Government Association. It states in its covering letter that its main remaining concern about the Bill is the lack of flexibility in the Government's approach. It states:
Whilst it is understandable that the government would not want to make regulations for 410 models it is the sheer diversity of local government that has led to the call for greater flexibility. The Government has stated their commitment to the operation of executives under any form of new arrangement. This amendment confirms that commitment. It does not provide for arrangements that do not include such an executive.
The key passage reads:
The Association remains of the belief that for some authorities, particularly smaller ones or those of a more rural nature, a separate executive is not necessarily the most appropriate way of achieving efficiency, accountability and transparency in decision taking. The LGA would support an amendment that provided for some authorities to apply to the Secretary of State to be able to introduce other models, which may not include a separate executive.
If the Government's idea was such a good one, we might expect that Labour-controlled authorities would embrace it with enthusiasm. It is true that some have done so, but we fear that they have adopted that approach because they are attracted by the possibility of secrecy and carrying out decision making behind closed doors.
The London borough of Camden, for example, might well have embraced these wonderful modernising ideas. However, when it came to it, Camden, which is an overwhelmingly Labour-controlled council, voted 43 to zero against the Government's proposals. It is—[Interruption.] The Minister always dissolves into paroxysms of laughter whenever I read out these figures. It is the way that I tell them. Surely it is vaguely depressing for her that Camden is so utterly unenthused by her proposals. Perhaps she finds the situation amusing because she fully intends to drive the Bill through the House and force Camden, 43 to zero or not, to put into effect the cabinet system. It is interesting that the then leader of Camden, Councillor Arthur, who I believe is now the ex-leader, was one of three abstentions.
Another good example is that of Brighton and Hove. We had quite a detailed discussion about it in Committee. It was one of the first councils to adopt the cabinet system. The now Lord Bassam, the then leader of the council, was enthusiastic about making Brighton and Hove one of the pioneer authorities in implementing a new Labour system. Only this May, despite the fact that Labour has a 12-seat overall majority, councillors voted by 34 to 31 against changes to the current set up. They ordered a plan to be drawn up for a three or four-party committee system.
Since then, things have moved on somewhat in that the cabinet system is still being operated on an interim basis. It seems that some of the Labour rebel members were got at. I believe that an all-party task group is considering the future structure of Brighton and Hove council.
6.45 pm
Councillor Geoffrey Theobald, the leader of the Conservatives, said:
The Council was one of the first to go over to the cabinet system because the then leader, Lord Bassam, now a Junior Home Office Minister, wanted to pleased his close friends—
the Prime Minister and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions.
It is strange that two councils that might be expected to be at the cutting edge in modernising local government would vote against the Government's proposals. [Interruption.] The Minister is keeping up her usual running commentary on these matters. I am sure that she will have the chance to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Labour local government has not exactly embraced the Government's proposals with great enthusiasm. I know that the right hon. Lady will groan, if only inwardly, at my reference to the Labour campaign for open local government. She and her right hon. and hon. Friends have succeeded in creating a sort of resistance movement within Labour local government. It is made up of about 1,000 supporters, of whom about 500 are councillors in about 90 local authorities. I understand that they include leaders, chief whips and other leading councillors.
We heard at great length about the views of the Labour campaign for open local government in Committee, and I do not intend to repeat them now. Its views are not limited to those councillors who are members of it. These views have spilled over and are now shared by a number of Labour Back Benchers.
When these issues were put to Ministers in Committee, their response was to rubbish the Camden operation. It was said that Camden's responses were in favour of
white, well-heeled people from social classes 1 and 2
and that they were "grossly over-represented." However, Camden went to far greater lengths than any other council of which I am aware to consult local residents on whether they wanted the changes proposed by the Government. It sent out many questionnaires and held 30 public meetings throughout the borough. It had focus groups representing the disabled and ethnic minorities. It made many targeted attempts to get a real view of what local people thought.
Camden has shown the way. It has demonstrated that, with the right council taking the right approach, voters—residents—will take an interest in the structures of, and changes to, local government. It has shown also that in the real world there is no enthusiasm for the Government's proposals.
I was at the Local Government Association conference in Bournemouth last week, and heard of the less-than-warm reception that the Minister received from local government in its massed ranks when she announced the Government's proposals. Local government gave her the Women's Institute treatment. I challenge her, as I did in Committee, to tell the House who wants the changes. Who is driving them? Apart from a small coterie of Ministers and others in the new local government network and a


few new Labour think tanks, who wants them? Going round the country as I do, talking to councillors of all political persuasions in all parts of the country, I have yet to find any real enthusiasm, except for one or two—

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend understates the case. Most of the local authority members to whom I have spoken are actively opposed to the proposal. They opposed it because they do not like corruption, they want democracy and openness, and they see it as an opportunity for people who want to bring in corruption, to wipe out democracy, to stop the press seeing, and to bring in secrecy and control. Local government has had a small smattering of corruption, in percentage terms. The proposed system will allow more corruption and less detection.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend speaks from great experience.
I shall summarise our main objections. The first is that no one seems to want the wonderful new structures, so why do Ministers not leave the matter up to local councillors? There is an element of compulsion. That is the thrust of our amendments. Secondly, why does the Minister insist on damning the entire committee system, which has served many councils well over a number of years? Why does she persist in speaking about an old-fashioned committee system, rather than the streamlined committee system that many councils operate?
Thirdly, has the Minister made any attempt to estimate the total cost of the changes across local government? We know, for example, that Durham city council has budgeted £300,000 towards the cost of establishing a cabinet structure. Not a penny of that will make life any better or easier for the residents and council taxpayers.
Fourthly, and most of all, we do not want a two-tier system for local councillors. All councillors should have equal worth. The concept of back-bench councillors should be anathema in local government. We believe that small groups of people making all the decisions is bad for local government, and that a massive split between executive and scrutiny is bad news for those who do not happen to be on the executive.
For all those reasons, it is essential that the House, or failing that, the other place, writes into the Bill the clear right of councillors to choose another option if that is what they wish—not the bogus fourth option that the Minister has been peddling unsuccessfully, but a real, red-blooded fourth option.
I shall touch briefly on amendment No. 214, which would delete clause 23. We do not know why the Government are so set against political balance applying to cabinets. It works very well in places such as Conservative-run Bedfordshire. However, it has been grabbed with alacrity by some old Labour councillors, and at least 60 per cent. of existing cabinets are one-party cabinets, many of which meet in secret.
Finally, amendment No. 21 would delete clause 28(3). We call this the "abandon all hope, you who enter" provision, because, once a council has moved to an executive system, there is no way of going back to the previous system. That is harmful and unnecessary. It chimes with the general air of compulsion that surrounds the Government's attitude to local government structures.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I shall speak briefly about the argument for opening up local government to the people and the press. We have a cabinet system in my constituency which I am told is working well, although some back-bench councillors do not have the power that they would like. I suppose that that will come with time, as the scrutiny committees get down to their work.
The cabinet minutes go out to all the councillors and the press, and anyone can attend cabinet meetings—the press, the public and local councillors who are not members of the cabinet. This week, copies of the agenda went out, and one of the items on the agenda was a matter on which the council must decide what it will do next year. I understand there are to be substantial cuts next year in Blyth Valley, due to shortage of money. Some of the suggested cuts for the cabinet to discuss involved leisure centres and other amenities.
The paper was supposed to be private and confidential and councillors were asked to keep it to themselves, because it had not yet been discussed with the work force. Unfortunately, as it went out to all the councillors, the local press—the Newcastle edition of The Journal—got a copy, and printed it this morning. The trade unions and the work force were at the door of the council, demanding to know what was going to happen. Of course, the matter has not yet been discussed. That is the role of the cabinet—to discuss such matters, then go to the work force and tell them.
That example shows that openness goes two ways. Openness is right and I believe in it. My council has done right by being open, but the press showed disregard for an item in a cabinet paper that should have remained confidential until it had been discussed. I do not know what we can do about the matter but, after today's furore, I believe that it should be raised on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Don Foster: During the 18 years of Conservative Governments, both as a local councillor and then with the opportunity provided to me as a Member of the House, I railed strongly against the centralising tendency of those Governments. I suspect that many Members of Parliament and many members of the public looked forward to a new dawn for local government, following the election in 1997. Unfortunately, in respect of centralisation, the sun has yet to rise.
From various measures, it is clear that the Government continue to be a centralising Government. That is best demonstrated by their insistence on imposing on all local councils a requirement to change their decision-making arrangements to one of three models selected by the Government.
In response to that challenge from the Government, different proposals have been made from the those on the Conservative Benches and our Benches. I shall speak predominantly to new clause 7, which is an entirely different response from that offered by those on the Conservative Front Bench, and I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to have a separate vote on new clause 7.
It was a great privilege to represent my party in the House on education and employment matters for quite some time. I vividly recall the challenge made by the current Secretary of State to all of us to deal with standards, not structures, in education. That phrase applies equally to local government. We are all concerned about


the lack of public interest in local government, and we all want to find ways of involving the public more. The solution lies not in structural changes, but in giving local councils greater opportunity to do the things that are most likely to benefit local communities, and to have a voting system that would enable people to feel that when they voted, they could truly make a difference.
That is not the Government's approach. They have decided that three options are to be foisted on local councils. I am the first to acknowledge that the Government have been prepared to make some concessions, following our deliberations in Committee. There is now greater flexibility in those three options, but all three of them and any of the flexibility that is offered still require the fundamental model of a single executive.
It is vital that a genuine alternative approach also be offered to local councils. However, I do not take the Conservative Front-Bench view that the fourth option should be merely the status quo—indeed, without even any possible checks with the local community as to whether it supports the continuation of the status quo. I tabled new clause 7 because I believe it is important that whatever option a local council brings forward in the current climate should be tested for local public support.
7 pm
The new clause would provide the opportunity for an individual council to make its own proposals, different from the three that the Government insist on, but with certain caveats. First, it must ensure that the proposed arrangements would make the council's decisions efficient, open and accountable. Secondly, the new clause would require that as part of the package there should be effective means of scrutinising council decisions. Thirdly, it would require that the proposal be demonstrated to have wide-scale popular support.
In the form of those three provisions, and also the provision that the proposal be presented to the Secretary of State for approval, the Government are given a genuinely acceptable fourth option meeting all their requirements—the inclusion of scrutiny, efficiency, effectiveness, openness and accountability, the Secretary of State's having the last word, and a requirement that the public demonstrate their support for the model. We have even gone further and made it a requirement that the council making such a proposition shall have to demonstrate why its proposals will be better than those made by the Government.

Mr. Richard Livsey: To reinforce what my hon. Friend says, in the part of Wales that I come from, the county of Powys, which has an excellent formula for the administration of local government, is 120 miles long. The cabinet system is not appropriate there. In terms of distance, it is the equivalent of Bristol controlling what goes on in London. We must have flexibility of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He strengthens my argument by making the simple point that no two councils are the same. There are about 450 councils in the land. What will best suit one council

may not best suit another. Even the requirement that there be an executive or cabinet may not suit all councils. Therefore, we suggest a way of moving forward that meets many of the Government's concerns. The new clause does not merely say that the status quo can continue willy-nilly. Even if a council like my hon. Friend's wishes to continue the status quo, as it may well do, it will be required to demonstrate that it has popular support.
Of course, Conservative Front Benchers are perfectly entitled to propose the status quo as their way forward, but it was rather rich of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to pray in aid the briefing document from the Local Government Association and to read out various sections, without giving a full reading. To put the record straight, I should also read out what the LGA says in its document sent to all of us. It said:
The Association supports the removal of clause 9, which would have allowed authorities to "opt out" of Part II of the Bill without any consultation with local communities and their stakeholders.
It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to pray in aid the LGA for his new clause, when it is absolutely clear that the LGA is not supporting it. Having read all the LGA document very carefully, I suspect that I could with integrity pray it in aid to support new clause 7.

Mr. Waterson: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away with that line of argument, I would point out that I was not necessarily suggesting LGA support for the precise wording of our new clause; but it is clear that the Government have still failed to persuade the LGA or any significant local government body that their so-called fourth option is really anything of the sort.

Mr. Foster: I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman and I are at one in believing that the Government are wrong to impose on all councils three options that, in the main, have very similar features anyway. Both he and I believe that local authorities should be given much greater freedom to decide how they are to operate. Nevertheless, we have a different approach to how that should be achieved.
I end by suggesting to the Minister that there are many rumours, as there always are, about the Government's proposals. There is undoubtedly one category or group of councils that the Government's proposals fit least easily—the shire district councils, those particularly small councils with relatively limited powers. The rumour is that the Government may at least allow them to opt out from having the three models imposed on them. I should welcome hearing from the Government whether the rumour is true. If it is not, it should be.

Mr. Llew Smith: I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 7. In doing so, I know that I have the support of not only my constituency Labour party but the Labour council. Unlike Camden, it had no abstainers, I am pleased to say. There was total opposition to the cabinet system and the mayoral system from the Labour group in Blaenau Gwent.
However, I disagree with the Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson's explanation of why so many local authorities have already brought the cabinet system into being. He said that it was because they welcomed secrecy. I do not think that that is so. Most have introduced it not because they support it, but because they see a degree of inevitability about the whole process.
When the Government came to power, they told us that they were committed to devolving power. We all welcomed that. The Government will argue that acts of devolution were the setting up of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Some of us in the House did not think that that had anything to do with devolution, but a great deal to do with nationalism. However, if we take the Government at their word, and accept that the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament were created as acts of devolution, it is sad that they have not applied the same logic to local government.
With both the mayoral system and the cabinet system, the Government are not devolving power but centralising it in the hands of the mayor or the cabinet. My local authority, my constituency party and I find that politically unacceptable. We also find it sad, because we regard local government as probably the most democratic arm of government and, indeed, of the United Kingdom state.
Putting power in the hands of the mayor has nothing to do with devolving power; it is centralising power in the hands of one person. Unless his or her agreement can be obtained, the things that one wants for one's community will not happen, because that one person will not accept them. If in place of the mayoral system we have the cabinet system, instead of one person taking the decisions 10 people will take them. Once again, that is unacceptable, because those who are not in the cabinet are not part of the decision-making process and cannot reflect the aspirations of the community that they represent. They cannot have a say in making policy for that community.
The reason for going on a council is to involve oneself not only in the debates but in the votes, in a way that will affect one's little community in a positive way.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, looking at local government in Wales, that the cabinet system in local government was unacceptable per se. Will he confirm that that is what he was saying?

Mr. Smith: I am saying that I, my constituency party and the Labour group on the council unanimously oppose the cabinet system and the mayoral system because we are committed to devolution. We believe that the proposed system has nothing to do with devolution, but that it has a lot to do with centralisation, to which we are opposed.
I know that some will pray in aid scrutiny committees. We welcome those bodies, but we know that their creation has nothing to do with devolving power. Those who are not members of the cabinet will have no say in decisions, and the job of those who are members of the scrutiny committee will be merely to scrutinise. I see little role for councillors who are not members of the cabinet—many of them will be able to go home because they will have no say in the decisions that affect their communities. That is sad. We will have lost an opportunity to devolve power and to make councillors more accountable to the communities they represent, and we will have made it more difficult for the electorate to perceive the relevance of councillors and to exert some control over them.
For those and many other reasons, my position, that of my constituency Labour party and that of the Labour group on the council is one of opposition to both the cabinet system and the mayoral system, but of support for the committee system. Local government is probably the most democratic arm of the British state.

Mr. Thomas: I find myself in agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)

said in support of new clause 7, but in total disagreement with his approach to local government in Wales. I support the principle of separating out the executive functions of local government, because that is a progressive and modern approach to local government management functions. The system can succeed and has been seen to do so in several areas in England and Wales.
None the less, I fear over-centralisation in local government. I believe that local government is truly devolutionist in that decisions are made at local level. I have serious doubts about the Government's current approach to local government—the imposition of a rigid template, a one-size-fits-all executive structure that local authorities must adopt. On those grounds, both Opposition new clauses—especially the Liberal Democrats' new clause 7—have much to recommend them.
I should have liked to avail myself of the Back-Bench privileges that were much discussed during the hour-long debate on the guillotine motion, but I was taken ill with food poisoning and thus prevented from tabling my own amendment, which would have cast the National Assembly for Wales in a central role. New clause 7 offers a way forward: at least in Wales, the Assembly could be the body that considers different arrangements and, in consultation with local authorities and local people and with the support of local people, enables a committee system to continue in Blaenau Gwent, for example, while a cabinet system is adopted elsewhere.
Let me set out some of the difficulties peculiar to Wales and the reasons why the one-size-fits-all approach will not necessarily work. For a start, there are the unitary authority areas, especially the large rural areas such as Powys, which has already been mentioned. There is the somewhat anomalous position whereby two of our unitary authorities—Powys and Gwynedd—have area committees. Where does an area committee fit into a cabinet system? That has not been addressed.

Ms Armstrong: indicated dissent.

Mr. Thomas: Well, I do not think that it has been fully addressed.
We in Wales have independent councillors—I should say that they are not crusty old Tory councillors. Independent councillors in Wales are curious beasts: many are members of Plaid Cymru or the Liberal Democrats, and one or two might even be members of the Labour party; however, the majority who stand as independents do so in rural areas because they are, in effect, the voice of the local community, often closely allied with farming interests. We have found that independent councillors fit ill into the cabinet system that has just been set up in my area.
We in Wales have limited options. Whatever happened in London, the mayoral option was ruled out for Wales when Russell Goodway adopted his course of action in Cardiff. The role of executive manager has never been tried in Wales and has no track record, so I doubt that any local authority will opt to have such a beast.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Why are elected mayors in Wales ruled out by the example the hon. Gentleman cites, given that it involves a non-elected mayor?

Mr. Thomas: The fact that it also involves a mayor taking too much executive power to himself will provide


a warning to many areas. There are other reasons why mayors would not work in many rural areas, but, for brevity's sake, I shall not pursue that matter now.
If the Bill is passed in its current form, the cabinet system will become the de facto system of local government in Wales. That will lead to considerable local unhappiness and discontent.

Mr. Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cabinet system will wholly exclude people living in the vast rural areas of Wales that we represent, which will be wholly excluded from the decision-making process?

Ms Armstrong: indicated dissent.

Mr. Thomas: The Minister evidently disagrees with the hon. Gentleman's observation, but that is what local people have told me. The Government must listen to the views of local people.
We in Ceredigion held a wide-ranging consultation on the cabinet system. Local community councils were dumbfounded and bemused by the way things were going; they did not understand how they would now relate to what they regarded as a local-member-led council. My council might be regarded as extremely old fashioned in that respect, but it achieves the best education results in Wales, so there must be something to be said for the traditional methods of carrying out council business in Wales.
We in Plaid Cymru favour the principle of establishing an executive, but we recognise the need to gain local people's support for any change, especially in rural Wales and other areas. However, so far the Government have singularly failed to persuade the majority of people in Wales and in England that their proposals offer the best local solution.
There is no doubt that people want to have a greater say in how their local government works—they might even want to shape their local government executive. However, the Bill imposes on that executive a shape that fails to give local people—and, in Wales, the National Assembly—a strong enough voice. In Wales, the way forward could legitimately involve the National Assembly to a greater extent. I hope that, in another place and at another time, close scrutiny will be given to this part of the Bill.
There should be an opt-out, perhaps along the lines of new clause 7, whereby, if local people working with the local authority come up with an alternative arrangement, they will be allowed to adopt it as their local government structure. Local government will not succeed without the encouragement and full support of its local community, but there are elements within the proposed structure that fly in the face of that principle.

Mr. John McDonnell: We are engaged in a century-old debate between centralisers and devolvers about centralisation and decentralisation. In the late 1970s, those working in local government were told by Anthony Crosland that the party was over. Then, we got dragged into the monetarist debate and we were told that part of our public expenditure was causing an economic crisis. The Tories tried to undermine both local government powers over public expenditure through rate capping and local government structures.
During that 20-year period, members of the Labour party worked to develop policies that would reinvigorate local government when a Labour Government were elected. That renewal was to be based on the return of powers and of resources. Then, within months of the general election, the debate was hijacked into discussion of structures: the argument was suddenly about the need for new structures, such as mayors, cabinets and so on. The thrust of our policy had held good for 15 years, and it is true that the current Government are releasing new resources and giving local government new powers; this Bill forms part of that. However, the Bill does not set councils free, but imposes on them a structure that none of them and no single major local government association wants.
Until months before the general election, most of our Front-Bench colleagues rejected the system. We criticised the previous Government's proposals with their mayoral options as ludicrous. However, the pressure from some groups in the Labour party with no experience of local government has led to the potential loss of democratic freedom that we are considering.
I support new clause 7 because it tries to re-establish some form of local freedom. We were told about the advantages of the mayor and cabinet option. We recently had a test of that system in London. It did not increase turnout, which remained roughly the same as for the Greater London council elections. It did not increase effectiveness. I have served in the new structure for the past six weeks and while I do not criticise the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who has to work with the existing structure, it is not a model of effectiveness and efficiency. It was argued that the system would enhance the quality of the candidates and the elected mayor. It is ironic that, after 18 years, the same person is running London under the new system as under the old system.
The system's drawbacks are clear. It undermines local choice. New clause 7 seeks to re-establish at least the potential for retaining the option of a streamlined committee structure. The Government's proposals have the potential to establish a local oligarchy, which works in secret and is prone to corruption. From the Webbs onwards, the Labour party has argued that the committee structure enabled training in local democracy.
The Government's proposals establish two classes: the deciders and the spectators. We are wishing the parliamentary system on local government. What arrogance. It demonstrates on the part of the Labour party leadership contempt for local government and contempt for local councillors, in the same way as some have contempt for our party and our rank and file activists.
We are throwing away the opportunity of retaining all the options. The Government's proposals do not constitute modernisation, which allows organic growth of democratic systems at local level. They are a step back to a system that has failed elsewhere, and will fail in this country. At the local government conference, the Minister argued that there was a fourth option that would allow the flexibility that local government required and demanded. I ask the Minister to clarify in the brief time available whether the fourth option allows for the streamlined


system of committee government for which Labour local government has argued. If not, I shall vote for new clause 7.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I follow on from the last point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) made. I welcome the proposals in new clause 7, especially the tough tests for which it would provide. I would opt for that, but I would also settle for local government having the right to make the choice if it could pass the tests. I am not sure whether that was the view that the Minister expressed when she addressed the local government conference. She said that a fourth option existed. However, the Bill does not make clear the nature of that option and whether it includes the possibility of a reformed committee system. If not, we are closing down local government rather than opening it up.
I congratulate the Nottingham Evening Post on its responsible campaign in my area against the secret society. It has campaigned to open up local government to proper accountability and for the ability of local people to hold local government to account. If we do that, we have many options for inclusion and local choice, some of which are set out in new clause 7. One area in the county has already begun to follow that path. Newark and Sherwood has set out proposals for broadcasting its council meetings. The public can phone in directly to pose questions during committee meetings.
There are many ways in which to open up local government. I hope that the Minister will clarify whether we will present local people with a revised committee system as one of the options that they can choose for themselves. If we do not, we shall tie ourselves to the presumption that local government cannot lead, but must be led down a path of openness. That is a tragedy. The three options for which the Bill provides will sadly guarantee less openness.

Ms Armstrong: I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends did not attend some of the earlier debates because some interesting ideas have been presented. Much misunderstanding continues to exist; I am sorry about that, and I take some responsibility for it.
In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I say that we have rehearsed the arguments often. I tell him and some of my hon. Friends that we have not suddenly discovered a problem with the committee system; it was identified by the Maud committee and, in 1993, by a joint Government and local government working party, which included all the local government associations. That joint working party stated:
Most major policy decisions in practice are not taken by the full council, its committees or subcommittees but elsewhere within the ruling group—where there is a majority group—or in consultation with the leadership of other groups where there is a minority administration or coalition… Formal authority may rest with the full council, or with the committee, but the real authority rests with individuals.
The Local Government Management Board, which was established by local authority associations to deal with support, training and negotiations, stated:
A concentration of decision making powers in small groups outside the formal arenas
characterised the committee system and that that had increased over the years. However, the pretence is maintained that the full council makes the decisions. As we all know, the reality is that it does not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) claims that he is not enjoying the experience of serving in the Greater London Authority cabinet. My hon. Friend is not in the cabinet as an elected Member, but as an adviser and supporter. However, the public have the right to know that he is an adviser and that he is not giving advice secretly or without it being made public. That is a better system than the previous one.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I share an ambition to find ways in which to reflect the integrity of the aims of accountability, scrutiny and better contact with the public in the broad framework that we are trying to establish in the Bill. We are working in the same way on many matters. However, we are divided on one substantive issue. The new clause proposes that each council should have a separate method of doing things. That would mean that the statute book would have to recognise that, and uphold the individual constitutions of every single authority. That would lead to too much parliamentary interference. The new clause would provide for too much central control rather than the much looser framework that we seek.
I believe that the hon. Member for Bath is not paying sufficient attention to scrutiny and that several executives mean that fewer people are left to scrutinise. That is a key point for local government: there has not been substantial scrutiny in the past. Much greater scrutiny is required. Not only decisions, but their effect on individuals need to be scrutinised. I hope that the House will reject new clause 1 because it will take local government back to the problems that the Maud committee and the local government associations considered: decisions by small, unaccountable cabals. Nobody knew what those cabals were talking about. We are trying to move away from that. I believe that our fourth option will take us in the same direction as the hon. Member for Bath. I hope that hon. Members will reject the amendments.

Mr. Waterson: We are not happy with what the Minister has said. It is the same tired old stuff. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to press the motion to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 314.

Division No. 249]
[7.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Amess, David



Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Chope, Christopher


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Collins, Tim


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cran, James


Bercow, John
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Blunt, Crispin
Duncan Smith, Iain


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brady, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam


Brazier, Julian
Fraser, Christopher


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garnier, Edward


Burns, Simon
Gibb, Nick


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher






Gray, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Green, Damian
May, Mrs Theresa


Greenway, John
Moss, Malcolm


Grieve, Dominic
Norman, Archie


Gummer, Rt Hon John
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Pickles, Eric


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Prior, David


Hammond, Philip
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Robertson, Laurence


Hayes, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heald, Oliver
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Ruffley, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
St Aubyn, Nick


Horam, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Richard


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Jenkin, Bernard
Spring, Richard


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Swayne, Desmond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Syms, Robert


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Leigh, Edward
Townend, John


Letwin, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Trend, Michael


Lidington, David
Tyrie, Andrew


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Loughton, Tim
Whittingdale, John


Luff, Peter
Wilshire, David


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Yeo, Tim


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Maclean, Rt Hon David



McLoughlin, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Madel, Sir David
Mr. John Randall and


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. Stephen Day.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Browne, Desmond


Alexander, Douglas
Buck, Ms Karen


Allan, Richard
Burden, Richard


Allen, Graham
Burgon, Colin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Burnett, John


Ashton, Joe
Burstow, Paul


Atherton, Ms Candy
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atkins, Charlotte
Cable, Dr Vincent


Austin, John
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Baker, Norman
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Ballard, Jackie



Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barron, Kevin
Cann, Jamie


Beard, Nigel
Caplin, Ivor


Begg, Miss Anne
Caton, Martin


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Chidgey, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clapham, Michael


Benton, Joe
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Best, Harold
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clelland, David


Blizzard, Bob
Clwyd, Ann


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Coaker, Vernon


Borrow, David
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cohen, Harry


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coleman, Iain


Bradshaw, Ben
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Brake, Tom
Cotter, Brian


Brand, Dr Peter
Cousins, Jim


Breed, Colin
Cox, Tom


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cranston, Ross





Crausby, David
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Humble, Mrs Joan



Hurst, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hutton, John


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darvill, Keith
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davidson, Ian
Jamieson, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Denham, John
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Drew, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Edwards, Huw
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Efford, Clive
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keetch, Paul


Ennis, Jeff
Kemp, Fraser


Fearn, Ronnie
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Fisher, Mark



Fitzpatrick, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Kidney, David


Flint, Caroline
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Flynn, Paul
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Follett, Barbara
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lammy, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Leslie, Christopher


Fyfe, Maria
Levitt, Tom


Galloway, George
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gardiner, Barry
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Livsey, Richard


Gerrard, Neil
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gidley, Sandra
Lock, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Love, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAvoy, Thomas


Godsiff, Roger
McCabe, Steve


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grocott, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grogan, John
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Gunnell, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Harris, Dr Evan
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harvey, Nick
Martlew, Eric


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Heppell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hesford, Stephen
Mitchell, Austin


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moore, Michael


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoey, Kate
Mountford, Kali


Hope, Phil
Mudie, George


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Howells, Dr Kim
Naysmith, Dr Doug






Oaten, Mark
Stevenson, George


O'Hara, Eddie
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Olner, Bill
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Öpik, Lembit
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pearson, Ian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Perham, Ms Linda
Stunell, Andrew


Pickthall, Colin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pike, Peter L
Taylor. Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pond, Chris
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pound, Stephen
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, Sir Raymond
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Todd, Mark


Primarolo, Dawn
Touhig, Don


Purchase, Ken
Trickett, Jon


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rendel, David
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rooney, Terry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tyler, Paul


Rowlands, Ted
Vis, Dr Rudi


Roy, Frank
Walley, Ms Joan


Ruane, Chris
Ward, Ms Claire


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Watts, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
White, Brian


Ryan, Ms Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Salter, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Sanders, Adrian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sarwar, Mohammad



Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sawford, Phil
Willis, Phil


Sedgemore, Brian
Wills, Michael


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winnick, David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Skinner, Dennis
Wood, Mike


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Squire, Ms Rachel
Tellers for the Noes:


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

APPLICATION FOR LOCALLY DEVELOPED ARRANGEMENTS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a local authority to apply to propose to the Secretary of State arrangements not provided for by or under sections 10(2) to (5).

(2) In submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State under regulations issued under subsection (1) an authority must:

(a) demonstrate that the proposals have the support of the local government electors for, and other interested parties in, the authority's area,
(b) ensure that the arrangements include provision for the appointment by the authority of one or more overview and scrutiny committees,
(c) explain why the authority considers that the proposed arrangements would be more suitable to local circumstances than a local authority executive as specified in sections 10(2) to (5) and

(d) explain why the authority considers that the proposed arrangements would be likely to ensure that decisions of the authority are taken in an efficient, transparent and accountable way.

(3) In issuing a regulation under subsection (1) the Secretary of State may, in particular, include:

(a) details as to the number or class of authorities to which those regulations apply,
(b) the criteria to which the Secretary of State must have regard in considering any proposals submitted under those regulations. In particular these criteria may include:

(i) the population of the authority,
(ii) the number of members of the authority,
(iii) the nature of the communities in the authorities area, and
(iv) the history of the authority's political control.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 43. Noes 273.

Division No. 250]
[7.44 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Baker, Norman



Ballard, Jackie
Livsey, Richard


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Brand, Dr Peter
McDonnell, John


Breed, Colin
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Burnett, John
Moore, Michael


Burstow, Paul
Oaten, Mark


Cable, Dr Vincent
Öpik, Lembit


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Rendel, David



Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chidgey David
Sanders, Adrian


Cotter Brian
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fearn, Ronnie
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tyler, Paul


Gidley, Sandra
Webb, Steve


Harris, Dr Evan
Willis, Phil


Harvey, Nick
Wood, Mike


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Keetch, Paul
Mr. Andrew Stunell and



Mr. Tom Brake.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Berry, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Best, Harold


Alexander, Douglas
Blackman, Liz


Allen, Graham
Blears, Ms Hazel


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blizzard, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Borrow, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Austin, John
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Barnes, Harry
Bradshaw, Ben


Barron, Kevin
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Beard, Nigel
Browne, Desmond


Begg, Miss Anne
Buck, Ms Karen


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Burden, Richard


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Burgon, Colin


Bennett, Andrew F
Butler, Mrs Christine


Benton, Joe
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)






Cann, Jamie
Healey, John


Caplin, Ivor
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Caton, Martin
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Ann
Howells, Dr Kim


Coaker, Vernon
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coleman, Iain
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hurst, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cranston, Ross
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Crausby, David
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jenkins, Brian



Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair



Darvill, Keith
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa



Keeble, Ms Sally


Dawson, Hilton
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Denham, John
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Doran, Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Drew, David
Kidney, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Edwards, Huw
Lammy, David


Efford, Clive
Laxton, Bob


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Leslie, Christopher


Ennis, Jeff
Levitt, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Flynn, Paul
Love, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fyfe, Maria
Macdonald, Calum


Galloway, George
McIsaac, Shona


Gardiner, Barry
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWalter, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mallaber, Judy


Godsiff, Roger
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Goggins, Paul
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meale, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Merron, Gillian


Grogan, John
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Gunnell, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mitchell, Austin


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mountford, Kali





Mudie, George
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stevenson, George


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Hara, Eddie
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Olner, Bill
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pearson, Ian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Perham, Ms Linda
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pond, Chris
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pope, Greg
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pound, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy


Powell, Sir Raymond
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Trickett, Jon


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Quinn, Lawrie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rooney Terry
Walley, Ms Joan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Ward, Ms Claire


Rowlands, Ted
Wareing, Robert N


Roy, Frank
Watts, David


Ruane, Chris
White, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wicks, Malcolm


Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Salter, Martin



Sarwar, Mohammad
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Savidge, Malcolm
Wills, Michael


Sawford, Phil
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sedgemore, Brian
Woodward, Shaun


Shipley, Ms Debra
Woolas, Phil


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Squire, Ms Rachel
Tellers for the Noes:



Mrs. Anne McGuire and



Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10

PRIOR DISCUSSION BY POLITICAL GROUPS

'.—(1) No later than the commencement of the meeting of any overview or scrutiny committee, the leader of each political group with at least one member on the committee shall inform the Head of the Paid Service in writing whether or not any matter on the agenda has been the subject of prior discussion at any meeting of the relevant group or of part of it and of whether or not the judgment of any relevant member is likely to be constrained by the rules of the relevant group or political party.

(2) The terms "political group" and "leader" shall have the same meaning as in sections 15 and 16 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and in regulations made under Schedule I to that Act.

(3) In the discharge of his duties each member of an overview or scrutiny committee of a local authority shall act independently of any party political interest.'.—[Mr. Waterson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Waterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 61, in clause 20, page 14, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
'arrangements for the overview and scrutiny of the executive (such arrangements referred to in this Part as overview and scrutiny arrangements).'
No. 62, in page 14, line 18, at end insert—
'(1A) Overview and scrutiny arrangements may provide for the discharge of functions and the exercise of powers by—

(a) a committee,
(b) a sub-committee,
(c) a member, or
(d) an officer

of the authority (in this Part referred to as overview and scrutiny bodies).'.
No. 66, in page 14, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
'arrangements make provision so that the powers of overview and scrutiny bodies include powers, between them'.
No. 63, in page 14, line 36, at end insert—
'(f) to require that the implementation of any such decision as is referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection is deferred until a decision has been made whether or not to exercise the power conferred by subsection (3).'.
No. 67, in page 14, line 37, leave out "committee" and insert "body".
No. 64, in page 14, line 43, at end insert—
'( ) Unless the matter is certified by the authority's monitoring officer to be urgent, no decision by an executive, a member of an executive or a committee of an executive, under its executive arrangements, shall be implemented within less than five working days after the decision is published.'.
No. 68, in page 14, line 44, leave out subsection (4).
No. 69, in page 14, line 45, leave out "may not discharge any" and insert—
'may by resolution of the authority discharge'.
No. 70, in page 15, line 6, leave out—
'committee of a local authority'
and insert—
'body of a local authority which is a committee of the authority'.
No. 71, in page 15, line 9, at end insert—
'or by a single member or officer of the authority.'.
No. 72, in page 15, line 15, leave out "committee of the authority" and insert—
'body of the authority which is a committee of the authority'.
No. 65, in page 15, line 22, at end insert—
'( ) Where a member of a relevant overview and scrutiny committee finds that a decision by or on behalf of the executive ought to be subject to immediate review he may, with the agreement of two members of the relevant overview or scrutiny committee, cause the decision to be delayed until that overview and scrutiny committee has considered the matter.'.
No. 73, in page 15, line 23, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
'(9) Overview and scrutiny arrangements shall include provision ensuring that members of the local authority's executive do not discharge any functions or exercise any powers under those arrangements.'.

No. 74, in page 15, line 26, leave out—
'committee of a local authority'
and insert—
'body of a local authority which is a committee of the authority.'.
No. 75, in page 15, line 32, leave out "committee of the authority" and insert—
'body of a local authority which is a committee of the authority'.
No. 76, in page 15, line 44, leave out "committee" and insert "body".
No. 77, in page 15, line 47, after "before", insert "him, her or".
No. 78, in page 16, line 1, at beginning insert—
'(in the case of a committee)'.
No. 79, in page 16, line 3, at end insert—
'(15) The authority shall appoint officers to assist the overview and scrutiny committee in discharging their functions, and such officers may not also report to the executive.'.

Mr. Waterson: I shall not read out the amendments in this group. If I did, I would run out of time entirely—[Interruption.] I am glad that the Government Whip finds it all so funny—but, then, I suppose that it is quite funny when one is at the steering wheel of such a programme motion.
One of the curious, almost theological issues that the Committee examined was whether there is whipping in scrutiny committees. We had a fascinating debate on that subject, in which the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), assured us that the Labour party national executive had issued a decree that whipping should not occur in scrutiny committees. So, that is all right then. However, sometimes, what the Labour party national executive decrees and what happens in the real world are as different as day and night.
The purpose of new clause 10 is to make it absolutely clear that, as subsection (3) provides, those who serve on scrutiny committees should behave in a wholly non-partisan fashion, and that, if there has been prior discussion in a group meeting or some type of whipping, it should be notified to the local authority's head of the paid service in advance of the relevant meeting.
If Ministers are so confident that Millbank's writ runs throughout Labour-controlled local government, there could be no harm at all in including that provision in the Bill. Of course, the only reason why Ministers might be reluctant to accept new clause 10 is that they have a sneaking suspicion that such practices are indeed going on in Labour-controlled local government.
The most debated example that has come to light so far—it is in the nature of these things that they rarely come into the public domain—is that of our old friends at the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which, as I said in Committee, seems to have fallen into every elephant trap conceivable in this legislation. That borough is one of the great pioneers of the modernised local government system.
The Hammersmith and Fulham cabinet decided to introduce charges for home helps. However, three Labour councillors took the view that that was not a good idea and, in a scrutiny Committee, voted against it. By way of background, it is worth remembering—I think that my


arithmetic is right, but the figure may have increased since I last checked—that, in its brief life, the Hammersmith and Fulham cabinet has made 607 decisions, only one of which has been overturned as part of the scrutiny process. The process is, therefore, not really biting in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
As the Fulham & Hammersmith Chronicle reported, the three hapless Labour councillors were
banned from speaking to the press while they face disciplinary action after voting against the proposal to charge elderly and vulnerable people for home help services…
A Labour spokesman said no decision had been made yet but disciplinary action could include the withdrawal of the whip.
That sounds suspiciously like whipping to me.
Coincidentally, on that same day, as reported in the local government press, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, in a debate on this Bill, told the House:
We, as a party, have already made it absolutely clear that no whip will be allowed on scrutiny committees.
However, Mayor Andrew Slaughter—who draws a substantial salary for being the so-called executive mayor in Hammersmith and Fulham, but who has managed to retain his day job—was reported as insisting that councillors could be whipped without the scrutiny process being undermined. He said:
It's only reasonable that the party expects adherence to policies agreed at group meetings.
It would be fascinating to hear what the Minister has to say about Councillor Slaughter's interpretation of the Bill.
8 pm
Amendments No. 61 and 62 deal with scrutiny. We believe that there need not be a split between cabinet or executive committees and scrutiny committees. In Committee, we had a long and constructive debate on the experience of Wiltshire county council under Councillor Peter Chalke. There, the best of the committee system has been retained, even though there are completely independent scrutiny committees. So impressed was the Minister by what is happening in Wiltshire that she dispatched officials there the other day to find out how it works. I hope that she tells the House the results of that visit. It would be interesting to see whether the Wiltshire approach could be a fourth or even a fifth option in this regard.
Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 68 and 65 deal with deferring decisions, delays in implementation, attempts to restrict the function of the scrutiny committee and immediate review. They are designed to improve the scrutiny process, if that is the road down which we are going.
Amendment No. 79 touches on an important issue that deserves a whole debate in itself—the role of officers. The second consultative draft of the proposed guidance published by the Government stated:
Where the same officers are supporting both the executive and overview and scrutiny committees, there is the potential for conflict—overview and scrutiny committees will be questioning the executive's decisions which should be based on officer advice.
It is clear that the guidance recognises that there is some need to protect officers whom the new system might place in an invidious position.
We believe that it is artificial to rely on the scrutiny system as the answer to everything. Nowhere is it more artificial than in Hammersmith and Fulham, where scrutiny committees are clearly being whipped on a regular basis. Elsewhere, Newham has 59 Labour members. The one other member is an independent Labour member. How on earth can there be independent scrutiny by other political councillors if there are no members from other parties?
Those are important questions, to which there were few answers in Committee. I hope that our luck is better this evening.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) explained, new clause 10 would place a duty on the leader of each political group to disclose whether any matter on the agenda had been subject to prior discussion by that group. It is an admirable proposal, and a worthy attempt to prevent the whipping of members, but I suspect that it is unworkable. Whether or not the new clause is accepted, the system will probably encourage group members who want promotion to the executive not to rock the boat. That is the fundamental flaw in the split between executive and scrutiny committees, as it sets up two classes of councillor.
The other amendments in the group would water down the Government's explicit split between executive and scrutiny committees, and give councillors more flexibility over the arrangements. That would destroy what the Government are intending to do, but we have some sympathy for making the arrangements more flexible.
The really important amendment is No. 79, which the hon. Member for Eastbourne said deserved a debate in its own right. It would require separate officers to serve the executive and scrutiny committees. Clearly, if scrutiny is to work, that is a good idea, but there is a resource implication. The amendments do not cover the question of whether the paid head of service should line-manage the officers of both committees—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS TO THE 1972 ACT

1.— (1) Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1972 (constitution of principal councils in England) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) there is inserted—

"(2A) Where a council mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above are operating executive arrangements which involve a mayor and cabinet executive or a mayor and council manager executive, the council shall consist of an elected mayor, a chairman and councillors."

2.—(1) Section 21 of that Act (constitution of principal councils in Wales) is amended as follows.

>(2) After subsection (1) there is inserted—
(1A) Where a council falling within subsection (1) are operating executive arrangements which involve a mayor and cabinet executive or a mayor and council manager executive, the council shall consist of an elected mayor, a chairman and councillors.

3.—(1) Section 25A of that Act (title of chairman or vice-chairman of county borough council) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
(3) This section does not apply where a county borough council are operating executive arrangements which involve a mayor and cabinet executive or a mayor and council manager executive.

4.—(1) Section 245 of that Act (status of certain districts, parishes and communities) is amended as follows.

(2) After. subsection (1) there is inserted—
(1A) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply where the council are operating executive arrangements which involve a mayor and cabinet executive or a mayor and council manager executive.

5.—(1) Schedule 2 to that Act (constitution and membership of London borough councils) is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 5 there is inserted—
5A. Where a London borough council are operating executive arrangements which involve a mayor and cabinet executive or a mayor and council manager executive—

(a) the council shall consist of an elected mayor, a chairman and councillors,
(b) for any reference in paragraphs 2 to 5 above to 'mayor' (except in the expression 'deputy mayor') there is to be substituted 'chairman',
(c) for any reference in paragraph 5 above to "deputy mayor" there is to be substituted "vice-chairman".".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 12

FUNCTIONS WHICH ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF AN EXECUTIVE

Amendments made: No. 101, in page 9, line 1, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'( ) may be discharged only in accordance with any provisions made by or under this Part which apply to the discharge of any such function by that form of executive.'.

No. 102, in page 9, line 3, at beginning insert "Accordingly".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 14

DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: LEADER AND CABINET EXECUTIVE

Amendments made: No. 103, in page 11, line 10, after "makes" insert "or has made".

No. 104, in page 11, line 11, leave out—
'at that or any subsequent time'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 15

DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MANAGER EXECUTIVE

Amendment made: No. 105, in page 11, line 34, leave out "exercise" and insert "discharge".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 17

DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY AREA COMMITTEES

Amendments made: No. 106, in page 12, line 23, leave out from "authority" to end of line 33 and insert—
'which satisfies the conditions in subsection (4),'.

No. 107, in page 12, line 34, at end insert—
'(4) A committee or sub-committee of a local authority satisfies the conditions in this subsection if—

(a) the committee or sub-committee is established to discharge functions in respect of part of the area of the authority,
(b) the members of the committee or sub-committee who are members of the authority are elected for electoral divisions or wards which fall wholly or partly within that part, and
(c) either or both of the conditions in subsection (5) are satisfied in relation to that part.


(5) Those conditions are—

(a) that the area of that part does not exceed two-fifths of the total area of the authority,
(b) that the population of that part, as estimated by the authority, does not exceed two-fifths of the total population of the area of the authority as so estimated.'—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 18

DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF AND BY ANOTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 108, in page 13, line 22, leave out "(3) and (4)" and insert "(3) to (5)".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 20

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES

Amendments made: No. 109, in page 14, line 34, leave out "and" and insert "or".

No. 110, in page 14, line 35, leave out "their inhabitants" and insert—
'the inhabitants of that area'.

No. 208, in page 16, line 3, at end insert—
'( ) A person is not obliged by subsection (14) to answer any question which he would be entitled to refuse to answer in or for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

New Clause 9

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; BACKGROUND PAPERS

'.—(1) In section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 (inspection of background papers) for subsection (1) there is substituted—

"(1) Subject, in the case of section 100C(1), to subsection (2) below, if and so long as copies of the whole or part of a report for a meeting of a principal council are required by section 100B(1) or 100C(1) above to be open to inspection by members of the public—

(a) those copies shall each include a copy of a list, compiled by the proper officer, of the background papers for the report or the part of the report, and
(b) at least one copy of each of the documents included in that list shall also be open to inspection at the offices of the council."




(2) In subsection (2) the words "of the list, or" are omitted.'.—[Ms Beverley Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 11—Meetings and documents: notice etc.
New clause 5—Decisions made by individuals—access to information—
'.—(1) A prescribed decision shall not be taken by a decision taker unless public notice containing the details specified in subsection (2) has been given by him at least five clear days in advance of the date on which it is proposed to take the decision by posting it at the offices of the local authority.
(2) The details referred to in subsection (1) are

(i) the name of the individual taking the decision
(ii) details of how he may be contacted
(iii) a short description of the decision to be taken
(iv) the date on which the decision is to be taken
(v) a list of the reports and background papers relevant to the decision.


(3) The provisions of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to any report relating to the proposed decision and to any background papers used in preparing that report, as if the report were to be considered at a meeting of a principal council.
(4) Nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent a decision being taken without giving such notice where by reason of special circumstances, which shall be specified in the written record of the decision, the decision taker is of the opinion that it should be taken as a matter of urgency.
(5) In this section—
prescribed" has the meaning given by section 21(11).
decision taker" means

(a) an individual member of a local authority executive or
(b) an officer of the authority discharging functions of the executive delegated to him.'.


Amendment No. 82, in clause 21, page 16, line 4, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'—(1) Meetings of

(a) a local authority executive
(b) a committee of such an executive
(c) a sub-committee of such an executive
(d) a joint committee
(e) a sub-committee of such a joint committee

shall be open to the public subject to the provisions of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972.'.
Amendment No. 19, in page 16, line 5, leave out "or held in private" and insert—
'unless necessary to exclude the public for individual items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 (all reports) of Part of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.'.
Amendment No. 83, in page 16, line 6, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 20, in page 16, line 7, leave out from "decide" to end of line 9 and insert—
'which parts of its meetings, and which part of any committee of the executive are to be held in private.'.
Amendment No. 84, in page 16, line 11, leave out from beginning of line 11 to end of line 12 and insert—
'any meetings referred to in subsection (1).'.
Amendment No. 85, in page 16, line 20, at end insert—
', and where such reports, background papers or other documents relate to a decision which is to be taken they must be made available at least five clear days before the date on which the decision is to be taken'.
Amendment No. 86, in page 16, line 21, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment No. 87, in page 16, line 25, leave out subsection (8).
Government amendment No. 111.
Amendment No. 88, in page 16, line 42, leave out subsection (9)(a).
Government amendment No. 112.
Amendment No. 89, in page 17, line 20, leave out subsection (10).
Government amendment No. 220.
Amendment No. 90, in clause 99, page 74, line 25, after "10(5),", insert "21,".
Amendment No. 91, in schedule 4, page 87, line 34, at end insert—
'. In section 100A of that Act (Admission to meetings of principal councils), in subsection (6)(a), for "three" there is substituted "five".'.
Amendment No. 92, in page 87, line 34, at end insert—
'. In section 100B of that Act (Access to agenda and connected reports)—
(a) in subsection (3), for "three" there is substituted "five
Amendment No. 93, in page 87, line 34, at end insert—
'. In section 100D of that Act (Inspection of Background Papers)—

(a) in subsection (1) leave out from "members of the public—" to the end and insert—

"(a) a list of the background papers for the report or the part of the report shall be attached to or included in the report, and
(b) at least one copy of each of the documents included in that list shall also be open to their inspection at the offices of the council.",


(b) in subsection (2) omit the words "of the list, or",
(c) in subsection (2) after "included in the list" omit ",".'.
(b) in subsection (4)(a), for "three" there is substituted "five"'.


Amendment No. 94, in page 87, line 34, at end insert—
'. In section 100I of that Act (Exempt information and power to vary Schedule 12A), after subsection (2) insert—
(2A) The Secretary of State may by order substitute for the reference to 'three clear days' in sections 100A and 100B such greater number of days as may be specified in the order.".'.
Government amendment No. 205.

Ms Hughes: Throughout this Bill's passage through the House, the issues relevant to these amendments have been the basis of an informed and constructive debate on access to information. I am sure that that will be the case this evening, too.
I hope that both sides of the House will agree that we all start with one aim in mind—to ensure that the new structures are as accountable and transparent as possible. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the third aim of the executive arrangements, as identified by the Joint Committee, was to improve efficiency and establish a more modern approach to decision making. The debate has been concerned with how we strike that balance.
During debates in Committee, we identified that the central issue to ensure access and transparent decision making is public access to information. First and foremost, local people need to know what decisions are going to be taken, and also when and how they are to be taken. They need to know what information, analysis and ideas will be available to decision makers, and what will influence them. Above all, local people need and deserve to know how they can make their input into the decision-making process. Decisions that affect people should not come as a surprise to those affected. Equally, once a decision has been taken, the public need to know what that decision was and the reasons for it.
It is through this public access that, to a considerable extent, the accountability that we all seek will be delivered. It is unfortunate that the Opposition should diminish the role of overview and scrutiny, as it is vital to this matter and to the proposed structures. All the new structures, with their separate, identifiable executive and powerful overview and scrutiny committees, will contribute significantly to ensuring that future decisions by the council are made in an open and inclusive process that involves local people in deciding local issues.
Central to building the framework to deliver that ready access will be a requirement for executives to maintain a public forward plan of decision making, as set out in our guidance. People will see what decisions are going to be taken over coming weeks and longer. They will also see how the executive is planning to consult and involve them, and how they can participate. Amendment No. 112 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring such a forward plan. For the information of the House, draft regulations were yesterday made available showing how we intend to use the powers, should clause 21 be amended as we propose.
I recognise that there remain genuine concerns about whether the access regime really will bring about a culture of openness and transparency. I accept that these concerns have been fuelled by recent experiences, referred to earlier by right hon. and hon. Members, of the experimental new working arrangements being tried by some councils. Councils are already making significant progress in trying new and innovative ways of working that will involve local people far more readily and significantly in their decision making, but not every experiment has achieved the kind of openness that we want to see and will be required under this measure. Indeed, some have fallen well short of the spirit of our proposals.
I remind right hon. and hon. Members that these shortcomings, where they exist, have arisen before councils can adopt fully the new structures that the legislation will put in place. They are, therefore, not yet compelled to adopt the regime of public access that we are introducing; they are instead using existing legislation not to promote openness but, on occasion, to increase secrecy.
To achieve our aims, there must be change. Not only must there be a tough regime for access, there needs to be a culture of openness, and public confidence that such a culture exists. It is important that all right hon. and hon. Members accept that we are talking not just about structures but about mechanisms and levers to try and drive a new culture into local government. That is what we are putting in place, and the proposals need to be seen in that light.
We are therefore taking one further measure which I believe will dispel some of the proper concerns that have been raised and build that public confidence. Amendment No. 111 will allow the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the circumstances in which a council's executive must meet in public. If the House accepts that amendment, we intend to make regulations requiring that when a decision is being taken collectively by an executive, and is one of the key decisions that will be of the kind contained in the forward plan, the executive will have to meet in public to make that decision. The draft regulations placed in the House yesterday make that clear.

Mr. Waterson: What is the logic of having meetings in public to discuss key decisions and still having the possibility of meeting in private, or in secret, to discuss decisions that are not key and are, by definition, probably rather unimportant?

Ms Hughes: That is no different from what happens currently. I do not think that anyone would argue that every decision, such as those currently delegated to an officer, for example, should have to be taken in the formal arena of a public meeting. That is not in the spirit of the point that I made at the outset of my speech about the balance that needs to be struck between openness and transparency on the one hand and efficient decision making—which is also in the interests of local people—on the other.
As I was saying, the draft regulations will make it clear that such decisions will have to be made in public. In addition, to ensure that openness and accountability are a reality, we shall make it clear in our guidance accompanying the Bill that it is not just when a formal decision is being taken that the meeting should be in public. People should not be able to get around our clear intentions for access by, for example, questioning officers in private about their advice one week and, the following week, formally taking the decisions without a debate in that public arena. One could argue that that has been one of the problems with the committee system, and it should not be carried over into the new regime. We shall therefore make it clear that we expect that when the executive is having a collective discussion with officers, pertinent to any key decisions, the public should have access to those discussions.

Mr. Patrick Hall: My hon. Friend has made an important and welcome statement that goes beyond regulation 3 on page 5 of the draft regulations to which she has just alluded. Will she confirm that the wording of regulation 3 will need to be revisited again to make it clear that a meeting of a council executive will have to be open when matters pertinent to key decisions are being discussed, not just when those decisions are being determined?
Secondly, regulation 15 seems to leave the definition of key decisions to individual local authorities. Would it not be more sensible to have national parameters to help define key decisions?

Ms Hughes: I remind my hon. Friend of what I said. We will make it clear in the regulations that we expect that when an executive is having a collective discussion with officers, pertinent to any key decisions, the public shall have access to those discussions. The regulations will reflect that commitment.
On my hon. Friend's second point about the definition of key decisions, the draft regulations are, as he knows, out for consultation. What constitutes a key decision is a specific question that councils are being asked in that consultation. In fact, that was drawn to the attention of the local authorities when the draft regulations were published. We will take cognisance of the responses that we receive on that issue before firming up our views on how a key decision should be defined. Certainly, the responses of local authorities will be very germane.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: My understanding of the process that is being sought, and my view of an ideal process, is of a seamless mesh of access to information prior to a decision being made, while a decision is being made, and after it has been made via the scrutiny process when a key decision is in question. Is it the Government's intention that the new clauses will allow for scrutiny when a decision is being entertained but has not yet entered the decision-making process? That is what happens in Select Committees in this House, even though no legislative process is being undertaken at that particular moment.

Ms Hughes: We have already made it clear during extensive discussions in Committee that key decisions announced in the forward plan that we envisage will be weeks—possibly up to three or four months—in advance of a decision being taken, and that overview and scrutiny committees can call the executive members responsible to account before the decision is taken. That is already provided for in the draft regulations.

Mr. McDonnell: On the definition of key decisions, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to consult local authorities. Does that mean, therefore, that these regulations will be brought before the House for debate for potential amendment and approval?

Ms Hughes: In terms of the outcome of the consultation, there will be the opportunity to discuss the regulations.
We are very comfortable about moving in this direction and with responding to some of the issues that have been expressed. I hope that no one would argue that there should be no opportunity for early discussion in private among executive members about issues likely to lead to key decisions. It is in the interests of local people that members, with officers, are able to explore options and think through the implications of potential decisions before they make a decision.
Certainly, in terms of the concerns that are being expressed, we are also clear that when an executive is meeting to discuss issues that are pertinent to key decisions with officers, those should be in the public domain. I hope that that reassures some of my hon. Friends and hon. Members about the concerns that they have raised.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I am grateful for that clarification, but will my hon. Friend confirm what will be covered as regards advance disclosure? The timetabling is not clear. How much advance disclosure should there be? Would draft reports be covered by advanced disclosure requirements? Technically, it would seem that under the regulations a draft report could be the subject of a subsequent decision without any advance disclosure. Is it clear that the regulations will cover draft reports as well as the formal reports?

Ms Hughes: Yes, I think that our policy is clear on that. Under the Bill as it stands, where a member of the executive receives officer advice the report must be disclosed at least three days before a decision is taken. We are not saying that an executive member must have officer advice before taking a decision, although, as the guidance makes clear, in most circumstances we would expect that to be the case.
Our aim is to start from the position that too many councils have excluded the public from decision making for too long. That is a hallmark of the committee system. The desire to change that system is at the root of our proposals. Public access must be the norm. If people are elected to represent their communities, they must be seen to be delivering the best possible deal for those communities and to be accountable for that.
We shall carry over into our new provision the existing concept that certain matters, such as those relating to individuals or commercial contracts, are exempt information, on which, notwithstanding any general requirement for open meetings, decisions should properly be made in private. While we will carry across that concept, as I said in Committee, we shall review those categories to find out whether they are too widely drawn and should be reined in. Again, we will be consulting on that.

Mr. Waterson: As it might save time later, will the hon. Lady explain now what is the difference between what she is proposing to accept and applying the existing system of openness, as contained in the Local Government Act 1972 and elsewhere—subject always to confidentiality—which applies to council and committee meetings, to cabinet or executive meetings? Would that not be far simpler and achieve much the same result?

Ms Hughes: No, it would not. We are talking about an entirely different system. The hon. Gentleman has a complete blind spot about scrutiny and cannot see the advantages of a separation between executive decision making and scrutiny. Precisely because that is the structure that we are talking about, which we believe is preferable to the moribund process of the committee system, we need different arrangements to ensure access to information. Those are the arrangements that I have put before hon. Members today in our amendments.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Eastbourne said that his aim on access to information was to hold the line and that is what he just said. He asked why things could


not stay as they are. Holding the line is not good enough. We want to move that line decisively towards better access, greater openness and greater accountability for local people. The arrangements that we propose will achieve that aim much better than the present arrangements.

Ms Margaret Moran: On the issue of greater openness and accountability, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the media have expressed concern about access to information and the openness that the executive will allow for reporting. Is she also aware that at the first executive meeting of Luton borough council, Luton on Sunday, usually the scourge of the council, expressed amazement at the openness and accountability that is now available? It is far in excess of what was previously available. Also, the three days prior notice of information from the executive needs to be reconsidered if we are truly to be more accountable not merely to the media, but to citizens who want to be more involved and informed about the important work of the executive.

Ms Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am aware of developments in Luton because I was there last week to talk to council members, as she knows, and I was impressed by what they are doing and the spirit in which they are trying to implement their new arrangements in advance of the Bill becoming law. If she will bear with me a little longer, I will deal with the number of days notice.
In addition to our robust access regime, our amendment for open executive meetings and the review of exempt information—the outcome of which we can implement through an existing order-making power when the consultation is complete—we are also putting some other provisions before the House. New clause 9 will ensure that background papers are now listed with reports. New clause 11 will allow us to increase the minimum number of days that papers are available in advance of decisions, to which my hon. Friend referred, and we shall consult on whether we should use that power in the near future. Finally, amendment No. 112 allows us to make regulations for the forward plan.
In addition, we will for the first time bring key officer decisions into the access-to-information fold. All of those provisions taken together represent a considerable advance on the status quo that the Conservatives want so dearly to maintain.
On the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and others, I am sure that the spirit of their and our objectives is the same. I believe that the regime and the measures that I have outlined will more than meet the concerns from which the amendments sprang. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the regime that we are putting in place will ensure that decisions are not only taken accountably, following rigorous local debate, but that they are seen to be so taken, and that where an individual member of the executive is taking a decision, she or he does so after proper debate and only once people know all the facts. My hon. Friend's new clause 5 would achieve just that and our draft regulations deliver those aims. Therefore, I think that we are in agreement in wanting proper access and accountability. I hope that he shares my view that our package of measures will deliver that.
Finally, the Conservative amendments speak for what they are. In contrast to our regime for access and for reforming, modernising and extending existing provisions and significantly improving public access to them, the Opposition's amendments reflect their stance of holding the line, staying put and not recognising that local government in this century is a far cry from local government two centuries ago when the system that we still have was designed. Indeed, it is a far cry from the local government of the 1960s, when the then Member for Finchley, now Baroness Thatcher, introduced her private Member's Bill. Time has moved on, we have moved on, local people have moved on in terms of what they expect, but the Opposition and their amendments have not. In short, I cannot accept the amendments.
We can all agree, however, that we want a proper, transparent and accountable system that really allows local people to know who is taking the decisions, and when and how they can influence those decisions. The framework put in place by our provisions will deliver that. I commend new clause 9 to the House.

Mr. Don Foster: The speech made by the Under-Secretary of State was a tour de force; it was remarkable. She accused the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) of wanting to hold the line. She said that the Government did not want merely to hold the line, but to move beyond it. To hold the line was not good enough, she said; they want better access. In effect, she accused the hon. Gentleman and his party of looking backwards, while the Government are looking forward. She said that the Government are making progress.
According to her pronouncements tonight, we certainly are making progress. Indeed, during the past few months, we have made much progress. However, it would be somewhat disingenuous of the hon. Lady to pretend that all forward movement has occurred so easily. Even her hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) found out only a few moments ago that obtaining concessions from the Government on the issue is like getting blood out of a stone.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out—helpfully, his words planned and ready—that there were surely two improvements that we could make. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman knows that I too wanted to raise those issues. He asked the Minister whether it would not be a good idea to revisit both draft regulation 3 and the definition of "key decisions". All he needed from the Minister were two short words: "yes" and "yes". However, the hon. Gentleman did not receive those answers; instead, the Minister made a longwinded attempt to arrive at "yes" and "maybe"—even the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that.

Ms Beverley Hughes: Not fair.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman made it clear that a clear statement was needed in the regulations on the definition of a key decision. If the Minister checks the record, she will find that she referred only to what would be placed in the guidance. In a moment, I hope that she will confirm that she intends to ensure that the change of definition appears in the actual regulations.
For the many people who care about freedom of information and openness in government, a long and weary road has been travelled. Both sides of the House


can claim credit for the progress that has been made. They share that credit with many organisations: the Society of Editors, the Newspaper Society and, not least, the Campaign for Freedom of Information, whose members have worked tirelessly on the issue. Credit is deserved by those organisations and Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who is even now rising to his feet and to whom I give way.

Mr. Waterson: I am not so extravagant as to ask the hon. Gentleman to include me in his list, but he might think of including Baroness Thatcher.

Mr. Foster: On this one occasion, I am delighted to include the right hon. and noble Lady. The House will recall that she and another former Conservative Member of the House, Robin Squire, promoted measures on the matter.
Progress has been made. However, it is worth reflecting on the genesis of the matter. For example, when the draft Bill was considered by the Joint Committee, it recommended that
the agenda of the executive be published in advance, together with all papers relating to items which are on the agenda for decision.
Advance publication of the agenda is hardly a major request.
However, paragraph 2.99 of the Government's response to the Committee, published in December 1999, stated:
The Government is concerned, though, that a requirement to publish papers before a meeting might once again drive majority groups into private discussions outside the structures of the council and the purview of the overview and scrutiny committees.
At that time, the Government were not even prepared to consider advance publication of agendas.
That is where we started. Since then, with pressure from many organisations and from Members on both sides of the House, the Government have come to believe that we need the production of a forward plan that details
the matters in respect of which the decision is to be taken…the name of the decision ta…by when the decision will be taken…who will be consulted…the means by which any such consultation is proposed to be undertaken…how, and by when, people should make representations to them…a list of the documents, other than documents that are [then] available only in draft form, submitted to the decision-taker for consideration in relation to the matter in respect of which the decision is to be taken.
That represents good progress.
Furthermore, there must be three days advance access to reports, agendas, and background papers for decisions that will be taken at meetings held in public. The finalised reports on which decisions are taken by individual executive members must, apparently, be publicly available in advance. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified that point, as there is some confusion in the draft regulations that we saw yesterday.
Other progress has been made. After a meeting, individuals must produce a record of the decisions, including the reason for the decisions and the alternative options considered and rejected. The Government have agreed to undertake a review of the exemptions from public rights of access to meetings and information in schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. They have also

agreed to amend the Act to require officers to list the background papers to their reports in the reports themselves.
That is a pretty impressive list of the changes that we eventually managed to get out of the Government. I suspect that, tonight, all that many of us want to persuade them to do is to state categorically that they are willing to take one more, final step.
I should like the Government to do one more thing, although I accept that they are unlikely to do so—I should like many of the issues that we have successfully debated to be included in the Bill. I should prefer them to take that route instead of dealing with such matters in separate regulations. However, I accept that that is probably a step too far for the Government at this stage.
The hon. Member for Bedford identified the two key issues on which we seek a clear statement from the Government. The first relates to key decisions. We need to be clear that the Government are willing to reconsider and widen the scope of the definition of "key decision" and, after consultation, to ensure that it is included in the regulations. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear "yes" on that matter.
The second issue relates to meetings that may or not take place in secret. Currently, it is the Government's intention to allow a group of members of the executive, if they want to do so, to hold in private a meeting to discuss a particular issue before a decision is taken. As I understand it, we have tonight heard a clear intention to change that arrangement. Unfortunately, the current draft regulations state:
Subject to regulation 4, a meeting of the executive of a local authority, or of a committee of such an executive, shall be held in public if it is a meeting at which consideration is to be given to a matter in relation to which a decision taken at the meeting would be a key decision.
The important phrase is "at the meeting". There is a real possibility that members of the executive may meet—on an agenda item, with papers in advance—to discuss the pros and cons of a proposal, perhaps the proposed closure of a school. It may well be that the decision on the issue will be taken at a later meeting, or delegated to an individual executive member. In those circumstances, under the current draft regulations, it would be possible for the meeting to be held in private, if the executive so determined. That would mean that members of the press and the public did not have the opportunity to listen to the arguments for and against that decision. It is certainly my belief, and that of the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the other organisations to which I have referred, that that needs to be changed, so that there is a clear statement of what is meant.

Dr. Whitehead: For the avoidance of doubt, will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to me that, wherever his party forms the executive in a local authority, he will use the best endeavours of his national party machinery to ensure that that local authority abides by the laudable sentiments that he has expressed this evening?

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his comments in a non-provocative way. It would have been possible to have been slightly more provocative.

Mr. Waterson: rose—

Mr. Foster: Now the hon. Member for Eastbourne is going to be provocative, just when I was hoping that for once we could all come together and agree to move forward positively.

Mr. Waterson: I am tempted to say, "You rang?" Does the hon. Gentleman not think that this is a problem that will shortly solve itself?

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has now got me puzzled. The example to which I was referring was certainly one that would not easily solve itself. Perhaps he knows of another.
I take the spirit of what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) says. He will be aware that it is very much the view of the Liberal Democrats that decisions that are entitled to be made at local level must be made by people at that level. It is not for those at national level to tell them what decisions they should take. I nevertheless give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that my party will take steps to encourage all Liberal Democrat councils to operate with maximum openness.
I suggest a form of words to the Minister for draft regulation 3. I shall read it slowly so that the Minister can take it in. It might say something like: "Subject to regulation 4, a meeting of the executive of a local authority, or of a committee of such an executive, shall be held in public if it is a meeting at which (a) a key decision is to be taken or (b) discussion is to take place concerning a matter about which a key decision is to be made or may be taken in the future, whether by the executive or by any other decision-taker." From what the Minister said in response to the hon. Member for Bedford, I think that that is in line with what she has in mind.
I seek a clear assurance about the definition of key decisions, and an absolute assurance that, where discussions about key decisions are taken in a meeting of the executive for which there is an agenda item and for which papers have been prepared in advance, the meeting will be held in public, whether or not the decision is taken on that occasion. If I can obtain those two assurances, I will not urge my hon. Friends to press our new clause and amendments to a vote, and we shall support the Minister's new clause.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Like the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I welcome what the Minister had to say this evening. She was helpful in addressing the genuine concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the effect that the new structures for local government should be at least as open and transparent as they were in the past. We should all recognise that the Minister and the Government have moved very far from the Bill as it was originally printed and from the discussions in Committee that I read in Hansard. It is a tribute to the Government that they

have listened to the case put by hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and by other members of the Committee. It is to Ministers' credit that they have done so.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that one or two matters still need clarification, and the hon. Member for Bath has identified them. It is important that any discussion on a key issue, whether or not a decision is to be made on that occasion, is open to the public and that they are notified in advance. That is what members of the public want. They want to see what their councillors say, how they address the issue, and on what information they base their decisions. Those are the determinants—not whether or not a decision is taken. I am sure that the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Minister said takes that into account. I hope that that spirit will be reflected in her reply and in the draft regulations. That similarly goes for the definition of a key decision.
There are greater difficulties in defining a key decision. It is difficult to define them, and in a way I regret that we are going down that path. I would like to say all important decisions—but perhaps "important" is equally open to definitional difficulty. I cannot say that I envy the Minister the job of wording regulation 15, but it needs to be wider, and we need to hear something in the spirit of what she said in opening the debate, but clearer and firmer than that.
There are still one or two further matters that need clearing up. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) raised the question of draft reports. I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, and she appeared to be making a different point rather than answering my hon. Friend's point about draft reports. Draft reports do not lead immediately to a decision, but they can be crucial. The drafting of an original report for a local authority will determine the tone and parameters of any important decision about, for example, the closure of a school or an old people's home, or anything else. So the issue of draft reports needs to be considered. I hope that the Minister will answer that point a little more clearly in her reply to the debate.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bath that, ideally, the provisions should be written into the Bill rather than into regulations, but perhaps that is difficult for the Government to accept at this late stage in proceedings. No one will press the Minister tonight to put the provisions in the Bill. The progress that we have made on the regulations is sufficiently encouraging, and it shows the spirit in which the Government are dealing with the issue. There are issues on which we need the greatest possible legislative clarity. This is a difficult area.
Most hon. Members are sympathetic to what the Government are trying to do, which is to release local authorities and their decision making from the impenetrable, slow and cumbersome committee structure. However, in doing so, the Government inadvertently went down a much less transparent route in the original Bill. The Minister has saved the legislation and the Government tonight from that unhappy and probably unintended route, and has retrieved the situation; but she must recognise that significant decisions will still effectively be delegated to members of the executive—cabinet members, as they call them in my local authority in Stoke-on-Trent—and made in conjunction with the chief officer. It will be difficult to achieve transparency


in those decisions. Any one of those decisions may not come within the definition of a key or important decision, but cumulatively they have a great effect on all our constituents.
We are pursuing a difficult route which will lead the Government to keep a very close eye on matters. I hope that, quite apart from these regulations, the Government and the Ministers will revisit this piece of legislation over the coming months and in a year or two's time, to see how it is working and whether members of the public—and of the local press—are worried about a lack of transparency.
It was very encouraging to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) say that the local newspaper found that the present arrangements as demonstrated in Luton were actually more open than the legislation would require. That is to the credit of her local authority and the way its councillors and officers are operating in the spirit of the legislation, but we all recognise that it is perfectly possible to operate in a different spirit. Moreover, when decisions are very contentious and difficult, and a local authority feels itself beleaguered—as happens all too often—there is always a tendency for any local authority to smuggle things through and take decisions which, once they are a fait accompli, people will have to accept. Those of us who have been councillors in the past and have been chairs of committees understand that tendency only too well; it crosses all party divides and is simply a human tendency.
It is thus very important that we get this aspect right tonight, because whether we get it right or not along the lines that we are talking about, this will be difficult legislation to put into practice, and it will be difficult to ensure that there genuinely is openness; so the greater the clarity we get from the Government—in what the Minister says in winding up, and in the drafting of the regulations, and in the monitoring of the operation of the legislation—the better.
The spirit of what the Government are doing is right. Since Committee, the Government have moved an enormous distance in addressing these problems of openness and access to information, but we still have some way to go. I hope that, when the Minister winds up, she will recognise that advice in the spirit in which it is offered to her.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has just said. He summed up the problems that we face succinctly and clearly. Where I disagree with him is that I would not be so sanguine that we have found the solution to the problem—although he is cautious about it.
I always feel extremely wary when we send a Bill to the other place in a sense incomplete, with a key area of it lying around as draft regulations on which the Government will consult. Our final destination on this vital issue remains so uncertain.
We have been considering the Bill since April, when it had its Second Reading. We have had hundreds of amendments and here we are, in July, at its last knockings in this House, still fiddling with a vital section of it. That is a great indictment of the Government. The Minister, in

the little tirade at the end of her speech, said that Conservative Members were a bunch of old-fashioned neanderthals. [Interruption.] Of course we probably are—at least, I probably am, but not my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). However, that little diatribe hid the fact that each and every one of the concessions that the Minister has made tonight has had to be wrung out of her bit by bit; the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was quite right about that. Every gesture that has been made in this respect has been resolved by trench warfare waged not only by the Opposition but by Labour Members.
We are about to agree to the amendment—my hon. Friends would not wish to agree to it, but we are about to do so because the Government have a large majority on it—even though we still do not know the definition of the key word. What is a key decision? We still do not know that. We do not know what can be interpreted as a key word. As I understand the regulations, the decision as to what a key decision is will ultimately be decided by the local authority concerned, with some guidance from the Minister in some manner, which we have not seen—[Interruption.] I am sorry. It has been seen, but it has not been agreed. That is an extremely dangerous thing. I cannot believe that journalists and editors throughout the country will be satisfied by that.
The old committee system was described as slow and cumbersome. In many respects that is true, and those of us who have been councillors know what it is like to sit through some endlessly boring committee stages, but they are open to the public and to the press, and the arguments that flow back and forth can be heard by everyone. If decisions are not key decisions, but are nevertheless important decisions—the discussions before the closure of a school, perhaps—they will be taken in private and will not be properly explained and challenged until the scrutiny procedure starts, as I understand it.
I believe that we now have an intensely bureaucratic set of regulations, which are out to consultation. We do not know what they will be like in the final analysis. I believe that the House will be asked tonight to nod through a very significant provision that could bring about a substantial diminution of press freedom and public freedom—without our seeing the detail, which, in my view, should be in the Bill.

Mr. Neil Turner: I very much welcome the changes that have been made to the Bill in regulations. We have moved an awfully long way from the first drafting. As I said, that is a tribute to the work that has been done by Members on both sides of the House and by other organisations.
The Government had to balance the need to allow councils thinking time to get together with their officers and discuss things that are in the air before they take key decisions, with the need for a clear, transparent, decision-making process. We now have what is probably approximately the right balance. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on the need to monitor the working of the legislation. The regulations are obviously quite complex and will be difficult for authorities to operate. We need to monitor, to ensure that the regulations are complied with. There is a clear need for Government, and for ourselves as Members representing people, to ensure that our councils do the proper thing.
We need to be aware that the legislation is only part of the process of modernising local government; the other part was the Local Government Act 1999, which provided for the creation of community plans. The community plans involve the community in the way local government takes its decisions. The regulations make it absolutely clear that the community, local businesses, voluntary groups and individuals must be involved in that process. When those elements are combined in the decision-making process, the result will be that the transparency, the openness and the involvement of the public in local government will be very much better, once the Bill becomes an Act.
I therefore welcome these moves by the Government, and hope that the House will approve them tonight.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I share some of the reservations that have been expressed by my hon. Friends about the journey that the Bill has made on openness and on its provisions for access to information. I gladly pay tribute to the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which has been a beacon of light, has monitored progress, and has demonstrated benchmarks.
In an earlier reading of what seemed to be almost another Bill from another world, one took the view that it had been drafted by the Home Office. It had all the magnificent over-defensive reactions that reflected the thought that dangerous talk cost lives and that local electorates should not have the same standard as is suggested for the Bill. It seemed inconsistent that a Government who were taking steps to advance open government were also permitting a situation that denied the residents of my local authority, for example, the access to information that they had traditionally had. The fact that the regime is now looser than was originally conceived in the Bill is to be welcomed.
9 pm
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made two valid points. First, if terms such as "key decision" are not properly defined, that gives rise to anxiety. The standard in one place may well be different from that in another, and I know that the Minister is mindful of that fact. However, if a constituency covers two local authorities, two different standards of access to information might apply. That would give rise to conflict and would reduce our ability to participate. After all, openness of information is the greatest incentive to participation and to involving people in local government. They feel more involved if they know what is going on and, if they are sufficiently interested, they may participate in the process.
All political parties are trying to reach out and increase participation and the sense of validation of the decisions taken. I am naturally cautious about executive-style mayors such as we have in London, but I am a Conservative and one would expect me to view change with caution to some extent. Therefore, the first point that the hon. Gentleman raised was the variable standard between authorities.
The hon. Gentleman made another important point on the issue of regulations. The House drowns under regulations and we have very little say over them. They are not even properly scrutinised. I was going to whisper, but I do not have to do so in the House because most of

the information traded here is not relayed anywhere else. Therefore, I will mention the Child Support Agency. We all agreed with the concept, so it bears some relation to what the Minister is doing here. However, on a quiet summer's afternoon, when we were busy and our concentration was elsewhere, a raft of regulations was passed. As a Parliament, we caused great hurt to many of our constituents.
For many years, we have had to sit—I certainly have—in our surgeries wondering how such an outcome could have come about. It is difficult to put right a wrong. Although regulations have the effect of primary legislation, they are not primary legislation in the sense that we can take up the House's time to try to satisfy ourselves—this is what the process is about—that they are fair and reasonable.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was bit cautious about regulations, but that he accepts the good intent of the Government. I am very concerned about regulations, however, because 2,500 of them flood through as statutory instruments each year, and that is in addition to the 2,500 pages of legislation that existed even before the Home Secretary announced yet another Bill for this Session. I hope that the Government take that point on board, because it is disappointing to think that we shall not see the regulations before the Bill is returned to the House of Lords.
I want to give a cheer to amendments Nos. 82 to 87, which were tabled under a distinguished collection of names, to which mine was also appended. I commend to the Government a more vigorous approach when the matter is considered in the Lords. I hope that they will enable us to discuss the regulations in detail without the constraints that apply to most regulations.

Dr. Whitehead: I shall add my brief comments to those who have said that the measures that the Government have introduced on Report will lead to a culture of openness in the new form of local government. That is important, because when we consider the past and the future of local government we should be honest. The idea that there was a golden age of openness in local government that the Government first ignored, and then had to be dragged kicking and screaming back towards, is not true.
In the past, local government has, in some circumstances, operated in admirable conditions of openness. However, there have also been instances in which local authorities have operated in shocking conditions of secrecy. There have also been occasions, even after the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 was passed, on which local authorities subverted the requirements of such legislation by various means, including caucuses, pre-meetings, half-group meetings and half-group and officer meetings and so on.
In circumstances in which it is clear that a major decision is to be made, a seamless web of information should be made available to the public before it is made. That is the order of the day when that decision is being entertained and discussed and once it has been made and implemented. The Government have suggested changes to the Bill. I was a member of the Joint Committee of both Houses that scrutinised the draft Bill and, as hon. Members have reflected today, it is right that considerable moves have been made from some thoughts that came before that Committee.
The circumstances that will exist after the Bill is enacted will be a challenge to any local authority that wishes to pursue its activities in secret. The assumption will be that a good reason must be put to the public if items of any major importance to that local authority are to be decided in private. That does not mean that there are not circumstances in which certain decisions should be discussed in private. Certainly, there are circumstances in which decisions should be taken privately, such as those relating to tendering of contracts, in which a third party can get an advantage from those contracts, or cases relating to employees or disclosure of information which, in certain circumstances, may be prejudicial to individuals. However, I can think of only a few occasions when that is relevant, and there is an overwhelming case for openness in local government, which the changes will advance. I commend the Government amendments for the way in which they engender that culture.
Finally, there is now an onus on those in all political parties who purport to speak for local government at national level to make sure that excuses are not made for local authorities that are run by their parties in a majority, if those parties fail to live up to the culture of openness that the Bill will introduce. I certainly hope that what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said and what Conservative Members said in support of that greater openness will be backed by action in future. If local authorities do not do that, those parties should take action themselves.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman said that he could see good reasons why certain matters are confidential, and cited tendering as an instance. That relates to the commercial confidentiality argument which goes right through whole areas of British government. Why should a tender, which is an open market transaction, be protected by secrecy? In the United States, that would considered an outrageous suggestion, as people, including the public at large, want to compare open tenders. One might not take the cheapest tender, but one is forced to give the reason for that, such as quality of goods, service or reliability. I am nervous about starting to cocoon areas on the ground that they may require confidentiality.

Dr. Whitehead: Of course that must be constrained very scrupulously, but I am concerned that the playing field might not be level. If a private company wants to gain some advantage, for example, in a land transaction and the local authority is required to give it access to information that enables it to take advantage of the tendering process, the public might be deprived of money that might otherwise have gone their way if that information had not been available to the private company.
Such a requirement would be necessary if we had a regime in which everyone—whether a public, private or voluntary body, or whatever—were always required to disclose exactly the same information. Unfortunately, private companies have been able to take advantage of the openness of public bodies to make deals to the disadvantage of the public interest. We should be aware that that is possible and ensure that, in that instance and that instance only, the public interest is not compromised by the fact that the playing field is not level in those circumstances.
I hope that the spirit of openness heralded by these amendments is made a reality. One political party has recently introduced an ethics committee to its own internal proceedings. I imagine that that party would want to ensure that its ethics committee looked into any local authority, on which its representatives were in a majority, that proceeded secretively. Hon. Members from all parties have signed up to an important principle tonight. We should now ensure that, in future, the reality of local government conforms to the principles that we have enunciated.

Mr. Waterson: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, the Government have got themselves into a terrible mess. They have twisted, turned and tried every way to save their face, but it will not wash. We have heard all the usual guff about openness, transparency and so on, and we must all learn a new theology about key decisions. The Minister had the temerity in her opening remarks to boast about the fact that the draft regulations were put out for discussion. Yes, they were, but only since yesterday—talk about legislating on the hoof. The Government have rushed out the draft regulations. [Interruption.] I shall take no lessons from Ministers; they have the great panoply of the civil service at their disposal and have been preparing all this stuff for years.
We are having this discussion only because we pressed the matter in Committee, because the Minister has been greatly embarrassed in the media—we know how important they are to the Government—and because a bunch of brave Labour Back Benchers have tabled amendments.
The Government have rushed out the draft regulations and guidance because they are in an absolute panic, trying to buy off a Back-Bench rebellion—apparently, successfully for the moment. They have made an embarrassing climbdown, but to avoid the appearance of having done so, at least to anyone below the age of five, they have produced an incredibly contorted system of new regulations and guidance on key decisions that hapless local authorities will have to work their way around—as if they have not got enough on their plates with best value, cabinets and all the other weird and wonderful stuff, and with the odd directly elected mayor thrown in. It is as if Ministers' memories have been erased. If all that is so clear, obvious and straightforward, why did not they do it at the outset?
Why were these proposals not in the Bill when it was printed? Why were they not set out in the 400-odd amendments that the Government tabled in the other place? Why were they not in the nearly 400 amendments that the Government tabled in Committee? Why have they appeared only in the 115 amendments that the Government have tabled at this late stage of the Bill's progress through the House?
9.15 pm
If everything was so clear, obvious and self-explanatory, why did the Government resist the Opposition's amendments and the amendments tabled by other parties in Committee? Our proceedings this evening have turned into a face-saving exercise. There has been the occasional coached intervention from trusties on the Government Back Benches to make it seem that we are engaged in a natural, organic process. The Government's


first instinct at all stages of the Bill's passage through the House has been to resist a movement to keep the regulations, rules and practices that applied under the previous Conservative Government. That has not been a movement towards greater openness.
Let us leave all that to one side, however. Let us take it that we are where we are. If these matters are so important and significant, why are we debating regulations in a vacuum? My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made the point clearly. There will be consultation and eventually regulations will be produced. One wet afternoon, they will pass through some part of the House. By then, the spotlight will have turned on something else. Who knows in what form the regulations will eventually appear? If these issues are so important, they should be set out in the Bill.
By way of semi-explanation, the Minister responded to the old adage that the best line of defence is attack. She made the usual attack on the committee system. She alleged that the committee structure excluded people. No, it did not. People had a right to go to council meetings and committee meetings except where there was something properly confidential to be discussed. That is the point.
The clear purport of the Opposition's amendments has not changed throughout the progress of the Bill, as the Government have twisted and turned. It has been straightforward. We wish simply to ensure that the position that applies to council meetings and committee meetings will apply to meetings of executives or cabinets.
The Minister derided a phrase that I used in Committee, but I make no apology for using it again. We have been seeking throughout to hold the line. The right hon. Lady said that that was not good enough. That is absurd. She went on and on about the moribund committee system and the status quo, for example. However, our position could not have been clearer, simpler or easier to understand for those in local government.
Baroness Thatcher, as she then was not, introduced a private Member's Bill that set out the original provision of openness. It became an Act in 1960. We opened up the meetings of councils and committees to the public and the media. Further legislation was introduced, not least the measure that was brought before the House by my former hon. Friend, Robin Squire, which cemented the approach of openness and introduced some details, quite properly. I see no reason why that system—it was simple to understand and was operated over many years—cannot be applied to the Government's proposals.
The Minister mentioned scrutiny. What relevance does that have? We are talking about meetings of cabinets or executives and whether they should be in public. In a desperate attempt to solve problems of their own making, the Government have produced an intensely complex and bureaucratic regime, against which I would happily contrast our common-sense approach, which is based on experience. That is why I shall invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Government new clause 9.
Our two amendments are straightforward, and they were debated in Committee. One refers to part I of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, which enshrines the rules that I have already discussed, which currently apply. The other would amend clause 21 and put the onus on an executive which wants to meet in private.
Not surprisingly, the Liberal Democrats, as is their wont, are trying to have it both ways. They are trying to run with the hare and the hounds. They push for amendments, but are happy to accept the bizarre results that the Government have come up with. It is no surprise, therefore, that last week at the local government conference, when the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) was asked whether he was optimistic or pessimistic about the future of local government, he replied, "Both."

Mr. Adrian Sanders: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I said that I would be optimistic, were the Liberal Democrats in government.

Mr. Waterson: I am not sure that I remember the hon. Gentleman's comment quite that way, but let us not fall out about it.
If the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) can engage in drafting on the hoof, let me do the same. I shall provide the clause that Ministers are looking for. They do not need a lot of clever parliamentary draftsmen. The wording, subject to all the confidentiality provisions that ordinarily apply, should be something like this:
Meetings of the cabinet or executive should be held in public when

(a) members are making a key decision, and
(b) members are not making a key decision.


Is that simple enough for Ministers?
I do not understand the logic of producing all sorts of regulations, under which one must first establish what is a key decision. A series of criteria must be met. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), or possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, pointed out, the same people must make the decision as to what a key decision is, but let us leave that on one side for the moment.
When it has been decided what is a key decision, which must be discussed in the usual way in public. Fair enough, but why not apply that to all decisions, key and non-key? Why not continue the present practice, whereby a council meeting or a committee meeting has a full agenda, and apart from items of confidentiality, which are usually taken at the end of the meeting, the meetings are open to members of the public and the media?
I do not understand the problem that Ministers perceive, except that they are trying to pretend that the current proposal was the idea all along, and that they have not been driven to that expediency by pressure from the Opposition, the Liberals and their Back-Bench colleagues.
Let me give the Minister a warning. Why does she think that her cabinet ideas have been embraced with such alacrity by certain Labour-run councils, even before the Bill passes into law? Does she agree with Councillor Brendan Bird of Hammersmith and Fulham, a leading member of the Labour Campaign for Open Local Government, and someone who may be advised not to walk in any dark alleys on his own at present? With reference to the Government's proposals, he asked:
If this is modern, why do all the good ol' boys love it so?
I will tell him. For many of them, the secrecy was the attraction—the ability to hold meetings behind closed doors, as they did in the past, but to be approved for doing it and seen as part of the modernising agenda.
I warn the Minister that some of her dwindling band of supporters in local government may well melt way if the attraction of being able to meet in private—in secret—without public or media being present, is not available to them.
On the mechanics of the Government's proposals, we received the draft regulations only yesterday. Of course, I was grateful for my copy. Is it not remarkable how fast a Government can move when they are up against a Back-Bench rebellion? The accompanying letter makes the obvious point that the draft does not incorporate any comments received in consultation. That would be an achievement, given that that started only yesterday.
Regulation 15 contains the definition of a key decision. Such a decision must be an executive decision which,
in the opinion of the decision taker—
that may be somewhat subjective—
is likely to result in
something that
has a material effect beyond the internal workings of the local authority
or
has a significant effect on the authority.
We discussed in Committee how one would define those terms and the incurring of expenditure. I wonder whether that definition includes decisions about councillors' expenses and allowances, for example. There are other cases involving special urgency and other ways in which one can avoid the strict requirements of the regulations.
At the end of the day, there are still three major objections. One is that these are regulations; they are not in the Bill. Secondly, they still require people in a given authority to put decisions into a particular category, and it is for them to interpret those regulations. Thirdly, as I have already indicated, the problem is much simpler to resolve than that.
The House does not need to be reminded at too great a length, but it may need reminding to some extent, of the problem we have been trying to address. It took up quite a bit of time in Committee. It seemed to me that the burden of proof was firmly on Ministers who wanted to change the existing system, which seemed to me to work well, and that they should make a good and convincing case if they felt that there was any reason not to apply the regulations to the new cabinet system. We wanted to stop the Government effectively retreating from the Conservative legislation that I have already described.
Mr. Andrew Ecclestone of the Campaign for Freedom of Information put it rather well when he said:
We are now finding a Labour Government removing the rights Mrs. Thatcher gave us.
That is absolutely spot on.
Perhaps the most appalling example of the kind of thing we are trying to tackle was described in an article in The Guardian by Mr. Peter Hetherington, referring to Cardiff council where fat-cat councillors gave themselves huge pay rises. They included the then lord mayor, who was initially paid a package of £58,500. The local council was so irritated by media criticism of that that it decided to cancel all council advertising in the local press and set

up its own 140,000-circulation newspaper. The really awful part of it is that those decisions were made by the cabinet in secret.
I have a final illustration of why 1 think the Government are trying to persuade us that they have throughout had a certain mindset which is simply wrong. Very recently, as Mr. Hetherington pointed out, the Labour national executive described current campaigns against the cabinet system as "naive, misinformed or mischievous". The fact is that a whole range of people have come forward to oppose the Government's proposals: Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Charter 88, newspaper editors, main television channels, the National Union of Journalists, the Council for the Protection of Rural England—the list goes on and on and on.
But the reason we are here today discussing these tortuous amendments is very simple. It is nothing to do with any of those organisations, or even with me or my hon. Friends. It is because Labour councillors and Labour Back Benchers were not prepared to put up with what the Government are trying to impose. I say, "Good for them!" I do not mind their having the credit if that is where the credit is due. Good for them, if they are heading in the right direction. We could be dealing with this problem in a much simpler, clearer, crisper way. That is why we shall vote against the Government's new clause.

Ms Beverley Hughes: Despite the regulation churlishness from some quarters, I detected some warmth from some hon. Members for the provisions that we are bringing forward tonight. I welcome that very much. In the short time that I have I shall try to deal with some of the residual issues that hon. Members have raised.
The definition of key decisions will be enshrined in regulations. Contrary to the view of regulations expressed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), and as his hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) acknowledges, regulations are legislation and are binding on local authorities. I agree that the definition contained in draft regulation 15 is incomplete; it is imperfect, but we are working to improve it in close co-operation with local government and others. We commit to change it if that is the outcome of the consultation—that is why the regulations have been published in draft. Hon. Members may want changes to be made to the definition, but we expect key decisions to be the sort of decisions that traditionally would have gone to a committee for agreement, that the local community wants to know about and that are properly the concern of elected members.
We shall consider the form of words suggested by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), but I have to tell him that it goes too far. I shall explain why, because it relates to an important point that we have skirted around in our debate. A degree of ambiguity lies at the heart of some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members tonight: on the one hand, they express a desire to decentralise and to give as much discretion and decision-making power as possible to local councils, local councillors and local people; on the other, they appear to challenge the integrity of councillors by attempting to constrain them.
We are consulting on the definition of a key decision and we shall analyse the responses. However, I should like hon. Members to acknowledge that there must be a


degree of local discretion on whether a decision is significant. A decision that would be significant to a small shire council might be a small matter to a large metropolitan authority. We must have confidence in local councillors' ability to make decisions with integrity and to discuss them in the public domain. I hope that the House accepts and acknowledges that point.

Mr. David Winnick: Will there be any monitoring of the way in which local authorities allow in the press, and will cases of abuse be taken up? That is an important matter about which many people are concerned.

Ms Hughes: Yes, not only will there be monitoring of those practices, but they will be open to challenge. If decision takers are making decisions about what needs to be discussed and decided in the open, those decisions can be challenged through the structures that we are creating; people will have to account for decisions about what needs to be in the public domain, as well as for the substantive decisions they make in their role as councillors.
The reassurances I have given do not encompass draft reports, because such reports are not meant to be made public. We need to acknowledge the need for officers and members to be able to think the unthinkable: they need to be able to set down a series of options early in the process of decision making, at a stage when options have not been finned up, but a decision is imminent. Having said that, there is provision against abuse—for example, the possibility of reports remaining in draft form until immediately before a meeting. The provisions for prior publication of reports and our undertaking to review whether three days are enough—

It being four and one-half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 124.

Division No. 251]
[9.35 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Blizzard, Bob


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Alexander, Douglas
Borrow, David


Allan, Richard
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ashton, Joe
Bradshaw, Ben


Atherton, Ms Candy
Brake, Tom


Atkins, Charlotte
Brand, Dr Peter


Austin, John
Breed, Colin


Ballard, Jackie
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Barnes, Harry
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Barron, Kevin
Browne, Desmond


Bayley, Hugh
Buck, Ms Karen


Beard, Nigel
Burden, Richard


Begg, Miss Anne
Burgon, Colin


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Burstow, Paul


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Bennett, Andrew F
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Benton, Joe
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Bermingham, Gerald



Berry, Roger
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Best, Harold
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Betts, Clive
Cann, Jamie


Blackman, Liz
Caplin, Ivor


Blears, Ms Hazel
Caton, Martin





Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chidgey, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Grogan, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gunnell, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clelland, David
Healey, John


Clwyd, Ann
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Coleman, Iain
Hesford, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hoey, Kate


Cox, Tom
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cranston, Ross
Hope, Phil


Crausby, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr Kim


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hoyle, Lindsay



Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Darvill, Keith
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hurst, Alan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hutton, John


Davidson, Ian
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David


Dawson, Hilton
Jenkins, Brian


Denham, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Doran, Frank
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dowd, Jim



Drew, David
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Efford, Clive
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keeble, Ms Sally


Ennis, Jeff
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fearn, Ronnie
Kemp, Fraser


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fisher, Mark
Khabra, Piara S


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kidney, David


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Flint, Caroline
Kirkwood, Archy


Flynn, Paul
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Follett, Barbara
Lammy, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Leslie, Christopher


Fyfe, Maria
Levitt, Tom


Galloway, George
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gardiner, Barry
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Livsey, Richard


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gerrard, Neil
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lock, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Love, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAvoy, Thomas


Godsiff, Roger
McCabe, Steve


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
Macdonald, Calum


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary






Mackinlay, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


McNulty, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shipley, Ms Debra


McWalter, Tony
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McWilliam, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Merron, Gillian
Spellar, John


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stunell, Andrew



Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mudie, George



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Temple-Morris, Peter


Norris, Dan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Oaten, Mark
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


O'Hara, Eddie
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Pearson, Ian
Todd, Mark


Pendry, Tom
Touhig, Don


Perham, Ms Linda
Trickett, Jon


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pollard, Kerry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pond, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pope, Greg
Walley, Ms Joan


Pound, Stephen
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Webb, Steve


Primarolo, Dawn
White, Brian


Purchase, Ken
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Quinn, Lawrie
Wicks, Malcolm


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Rendel, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara



Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooney, Terry
Wills, Michael


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roy, Frank
Wood, Mike


Ruane, Chris
Woodward, Shaun


Ruddock, Joan
Woolas, Phil


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Worthington, Tony


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Salter, Martin
Wyatt, Derek


Sanders, Adrian



Sarwar, Mohammad
Tellers for the Ayes:


Savidge, Malcolm
Mrs. Anne McGuire and



Mr. Graham Allen.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Amess, David
Bercow, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Blunt, Crispin


Baldry, Tony
Body, Sir Richard


Beggs, Roy
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)





Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Leigh, Edward


Brady, Graham
Letwin, Oliver


Brazier, Julian
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lidington, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Burns, Simon
Loughton, Tim


Butterfill, John
Luff, Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clappison, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Collins, Tim
May, Mrs Theresa


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Norman, Archie


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Prior, David


Faber, David
Robathan, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Robertson, Laurence


Fallon, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Flight, Howard
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ruffley, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
St Aubyn, Nick


Fox, Dr Liam
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fraser, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gale, Roger
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Garnier, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Gibb, Nick
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gill, Christopher
Spring, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gray, James
Swayne, Desmond


Green, Damian
Syms, Robert


Greenway, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hammond, Philip
Townend, John


Hawkins, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Hayes, John
Trend, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Viggers, Peter


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Waterson, Nigel


Horam, John
Wells, Bowen


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hunter, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wilshire, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Key, Robert
Yeo, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tellers for the Noes:


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Mr. Stephen Day and


Lansley, Andrew
Mr. John Randall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 11

MEETINGS AND DOCUMENTS: NOTICE ETC.

'.—(1) In section 100K of the Local Government Act 1972 (interpretation and application of Part VA), after subsection (2) there is inserted—

"(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend sections 100A(6)(a) and 100B(3) and (4)(a) above so as to substitute for each reference to three clear days such greater number of days as may be specified in the order.

(4) Any statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

(2) In Schedule 12 to that Act (meetings and proceedings of local authorities), after paragraph 4 there is inserted—
4A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend paragraph 4(2) above so as to substitute for the reference to three clear days such greater number of days as may be specified in the order.
(2) Any statutory instrument containing an order under subparagraph (1) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 21

ACCESS TO INFORMATION ETC.

Amendments made: No. 111, in page 16, line 42, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'( ) as to the circumstances in which meetings mentioned in subsection (2), or particular proceedings at such meetings, must be open to the public,
( ) as to the circumstances in which meetings mentioned in subsection (2), or particular proceedings at such meetings, must be held in private,'.

No. 112, in page 17, line 19, at end insert—
'(9A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with requiring prescribed information about prescribed decisions made in connection with the discharge of functions which are the responsibility of a local authority executive to be made available to members of the public or members of the authority.
(9B) The provision which may be made under subsection (9A) includes provision—

(a) requiring prescribed information to be made available in advance of the prescribed decisions mentioned in that subsection,
(b) as to the way or form in which prescribed information is to be made available.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 1

EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS: FURTHER PROVISION

Amendents made: No.195, in page 77, line 13, after "he insert"—
'resigns as deputy mayor or'

No. 196, in page 77, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) The exective arrangements may include provision with respect to—

(a) the election and term of office of the executive leader, and
(b) the appointment and term of office of members of the executive appointed under section 10(3)(b)(ii).'.

No. 197, in page 77, line 42, at end insert—
'( ) The executive arrangements may include provision with respect to the appointment and term of office of the council manager.'.

No. 198, in page 78, line 4, after "he" insert—
'resigns as deputy mayor or'

No. 199, in page 78, line 46, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 220, in page 79, line 6, after "executive,", insert—
'which is held in private'.

No. 200, in page 79, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

No. 201, in page 81, line 37, at beginning insert—
'Except for the expression "local authority",'.

No. 202, in page 81, line 37, leave out "9" and insert "10".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 26

REFERENDUM IN CASE OF PROPOSALS INVOLVING ELECTED MAYOR

Amendment made: No. 113, in page 19, line 12, leave out—
'(within the meaning of section 30)'
and insert—
'of a particular type permitted by regulations under section 30'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 27

APPROVAL OF OUTLINE FALL-BACK PROPOSALS

Amendment made: No. 114, in page 20, line 12, leave out "made" and insert "given".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 30

ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

Amendments made: No. 115, in page 21, line 19, leave out "by or under" insert—
'under either or both of the following—
( )".

No. 116, in page 21, line 20, leave out "or" and insert "and
( )".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 32

REFERENDUM FOLLOWING PETITION

Amendment made: No. 117, in page 22, line 35, leave out "the proper" and insert "an".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 35

INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 118, in page 24, line 21, leave out—
'with respect to the discharge of their functions'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 37

ELECTED MAYORS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 119, in page 25, line 9, leave out "and" and insert "or".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 39

TIME OF ELECTIONS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 120, in page 25, line 43, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 42

POWER TO MAKE PROVISION ABOUT ELECTIONS

Amendment made: No. 121, in page 27, line 13, leave out "Act" and insert "Part".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 45

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendments made: No. 122, in page 28, line 30, at end insert—
' "alternative arrangements" has the meaning given by section 30(1),'.

No. 123, in page 28, line 42, at end insert—
' "fall-back proposals" and "outline fall-back proposals" are to be construed in accordance with section 26(1) and (2),'.

No. 218, in page 29, line 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'( ) in the case of a London borough, is a reference to the person who (disregarding paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1972) is referred to in Part I of that Schedule as the mayor of the borough,'.

No. 219, in page 29, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'( ) in the case of a London borough, is a reference to the person who (disregarding paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1972) is referred to in Part I of that Schedule as the deputy mayor of the borough,'.

No. 124, in page 29, line 34, at end insert—
'( ) Any directions given by the Secretary of State under any provision of this Part—

(a) may be varied or revoked by subsequent directions given by him under that provision, and
(b) may make different provision for different cases, local authorities or descriptions of local authority.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

New Clause 3

RESTITUTION ORDER

'.—Where matters considered by an interim tribunal or a case tribunal are or become the subject of criminal proceedings in a court, it shall be open to that court, in considering any penalty resulting from a verdict of guilty, to apply a requirement, as part of any penalty, that a restitution order be made so that any loss to the local taxpayer is repaid.'.—[Mr. Loughton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tim Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 34, in page 33, line 26, at end insert—
'(5) The code of conduct shall also apply to councillors in their capacity as local authority-nominated representatives to outside bodies.'.
Amendment No. 35, in page 33, leave out line 38.
Amendment No. 36, in page 33, line 40, after "authority", insert—
'(referred to in this Part as an independent member)'.
Amendment No. 37, in page 33, line 40, at end insert—

'(4A) The membership of the Standards Committee shall be such that the number of independent members exceeds the number of members of the authority (if any).'.
Amendment No. 39, in page 33, line 43, leave out from "leader" to end of line 44.
Amendment No. 38, in page 33, line 44, leave out—
'a member of the executive'
and insert—
'any member or officer of that or any other relevant authority'.
Amendment No. 40, in page 38, line 24, leave out from "three" and insert "five".
Amendment No. 41, in page 38, line 25, at end insert—
'(2A) The Standards Board for England must be comprised of persons possessing such qualifications as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(2B) Qualifications under subsection (2A) shall include not less than four years' continuous service as either a member or officer of a relevant authority.'.
Amendment No. 42, in page 40, line 17, leave out'—
', within the period of five years ending with that time,'.
Amendment No. 43, in page 40, line 18, leave out "five" and insert "ten".
Government amendment No. 150.
Amendment No. 44, in page 44, line 5, after "investigation", insert—
'of the outcome of the investigation, and provide any such member with a copy of any report under this section before it is made available to any other person'.
Government amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 155.
No. 45, in page 57, line 30, and insert—
'( ) Pending the verdict of the High Court on any appeal under subsection (15), the appellant shall not be disqualified, other than in exceptional circumstances set out in writing by the Standards Board.'.
Government amendment Nos. 209, 203 and 204.
Amendment No. 4, in page 91, leave out lines 20 and 21.
Government amendment No. 211.

Mr. Loughton: Having sat here for the past four and a half hours and seen trashed by the guillotine great lines of amendments for which I was responsible, it is a relief to be able to move and speak to new clause 3 and to some of the amendments in this group.
New clause 3, which deals with standards of conduct, was discussed briefly in those halcyon days when the Bill was considered in Committee. I think that the new clause's purpose is quite clear: to give protection to local taxpayers if the criminal actions of one or more councillors or officers results in costs to the authority as a whole. The effect of the new clause would be that, when a miscreant was found guilty of a criminal offence, it would be at the judge's discretion to impose a restitution order on the guilty party, to order him to pay a sum to a council to cover some or all of the costs resulting from his actions.
As we also discussed in Committee, there is a broad consensus that surcharging has passed its sell-by date. However, there is a sound principle behind surcharging—that local taxpayers should not have to foot the bill when a few rotten apples abuse the position of trust in which they have been placed.
As the new clause would apply only in cases in which there had been a successful criminal prosecution, a high standard of proof would be required before the axe could fall on individuals. The risk of unjust or unduly severe penalties would be minimised both by that fact and by the fact that the penalty would be at the discretion of the judge in the individual case, who, having heard all the evidence, beyond the straight guilty verdict, would be able to make an informed judgment on intent and degree of responsibility.
During the debate in Committee, the Under-Secretary said that she was sympathetic to the spirit of the new clause, but believed that the courts already had powers in that regard. However, an authority would have to pursue a separate action to recover its costs. The new clause would ensure that the same court considering the criminality of a person's actions would also be able to determine the penalty. That would mean that the courts would not become clogged, and that authorities would not have to gamble potentially large sums in lawyers' fees for further court action to recover relatively small amounts.
It is slightly disappointing that the Government have not chosen to follow up the idea, given the sympathy for the idea expressed in Committee. We feel that the proposal would reassure local council tax payers that councillors and officers who abused their positions would be sufficiently punished.
Amendment No. 34 deals with the duty to comply with the code of conduct. In Committee, I raised the potential problem of whether councillors should be covered by the model code of conduct for activities outside those involved in being council members. I gave the example of councillors who are appointed as school governors, as members of community health councils or of economic partnerships, and so on.
The Minister assured the Committee that councillors nominated by their respective councils to outside bodies should be covered by the model code of conduct. However, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) raised the subject of indemnification. He asked whether such councillors would be covered by their councils for any indemnities that they might have.
The question of indemnification has not been addressed by the Government, which is why we are relaunching the amendment today. I should be grateful for a response on that matter from the Under-Secretary of State.
Amendments No. 35 to 39 deal with standards committees. In Committee, we discussed this matter at some length, although the role of standards committees remained unclear. We appreciated some of the intentions behind the committees, but it was not clear how they would carry out the functions that had been described. The amendments would bolster the integrity of the members of the standards committee in the eyes of council tax payers and the electorate at large. They would therefore strengthen the Bill, rather than weaken it.
Councillors themselves have raised the points contained in the amendments. At present, the Bill requires that only one independent member must be appointed to a standards committee. We propose that standards committees should contain more than three people. In addition, we propose that, to be truly independent and to carry out properly their role of overseeing the conduct of councillors and the training and conduct of councillors referred to them, they should have a majority of independent members.
We also propose that standards committees should not be chaired by members of the executive, and that they should not even contain such members. We believe that a standards committee investigating questions of potential misconduct, or queries from the public involving members of the council executive, would be in an anomalous position under the Bill as it stands. The amendments would prevent possible conflicts of interest if standards committees have to deal with breaches of the code that involve members of the executive.
Some people have suggested that all the members of standards committees should be independent, others that they should consist of members of neighbouring authorities. That would allow them to play the sort of twinning, overseeing role that takes place at the moment, for example, when audits are conducted. Still others have suggested that several authorities should pool together for a single standards committee, as I gather already happens in west London. In that way, they could not only share best practice, but cut down on costs. That would seem a good, practical suggestion, but as the Bill stands, such a sensible procedure would not be permissible.
10 pm
The Minister was also vague about what powers will be available to members of the standards committee, in particular their role in those cases referred back to them by the national Standards Board for England. It was a feature of the report by the Joint Committee, which asked whether it was appropriate for members of the executive to be members of the standards committee as well.
In Committee, the hon. Lady accused me of being inconsistent and, now, prescriptive in making these suggestions. However, we are merely trying to maintain the integrity of the new committees that the measures are establishing. The hon. Lady also said that local authorities and their members should have ownership of the standards committees and their own code of conduct, although I cannot think of other areas, such as politics or financial services, in which the Government have been so keen on self-regulation. Does the Minister not think that our amendments would actually strengthen the role of the standards committees, and what is the point of them otherwise?
Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 deal with the standards boards. As presently constituted, they would have a minimum of three people. We propose that their membership should consist of at least five people and that those people should have appropriate qualifications. The new standards board is potentially immensely powerful; it will have the power to make or break the careers of councillors whose misdemeanours come before it. To have just three members of the national standards board also seems rather unfair; one has been designated as chairman, one as deputy chairman and the poor third one will be left out as an ordinary member.
There are other examples of committees fulfilling and overseeing scrutiny and disciplinary roles which have far more members. The Neill committee, for example, consists of 11 members. What was most bizarre when we discussed these measures in Committee was that, rather late in the day, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions suddenly said that it was not the Government's intention that those committees should consist of three people, but that the quorum was made up of three people.


Nowhere in the Bill is that mentioned. It says quite clearly that the Standards Board for England is to consist of not less than three members.
We invited the Minister to make it clear in the Bill that the membership of the Standards Board for England would be rather greater than three, such as five or more. Alas, the Government have again failed to address this anomaly. It was absurd; we asked the Minister when was a quorum not a quorum—apparently when it is called a standards board. I genuinely think that this had not been thought through when the Bill was drafted. That is why our amendment is a sensible and strengthening measure.
As part of this group of amendments, we suggest that members of the standards board should have at least four years' experience as councillors or officers of local authorities. That, surely, is not demanding—four years is a normal term of office for a councillor. Because this is a new committee, with immense powers over many thousands of councillors up and down the country, it seems only appropriate that its members should have had some experience in the bodies that they are overseeing.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 deal with the conduct of investigation. This is where we discussed ethical standards officers who are potentially very powerful individuals. They have the power to instigate investigations of councillors, to suspend councillors and to recommend penalties against councillors.
Given the immense powers that ethical standards officers will have—powers of investigation and to summon various documents—there should be better safeguards against such officers not having connections with the councils that they are investigating. In the amendment, we suggest that ethical standards officers should have had no link with councils that they are investigating, either as a councillor or an officer, for at least 10 years, rather than five. That seems a sensible period of time.

Mr. John Bercow: To whom exactly will the ethical standards officers be accountable?

Mr. Loughton: That is an interesting question. Although, on the face of it, they will be accountable to the standards board, the exact terms of their operation are still to be defined. In Committee, we asked many times for a definition of their roles and powers and whether those powers could be capped. We were not given answers.
I served on the Standing Committee that dealt with the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which provides for similar regulatory officers with immense powers. In this Bill, we are setting up another phalanx of investigation officers, whose accountability is questionable. Certainly, the link between their accountability and the local electors has not been established.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman referred to the immense powers conferred in the Bill. Does he agree that the essential prerequisite is, therefore, an adequate appeals system? That is now a prerequisite under human rights legislation. To what extent does he feel that that aspect has been covered by the Bill?

Mr. Loughton: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If he had been a member of the Standing

Committee, he would have heard me mention the European convention, in particular article 6, and whether it applies to these activities. We are talking about a body that has the power to levy uncapped penalties—fines or suspension from a council role—and there are potential implications for conflict with the European convention on human rights. In Committee, I asked the Minister to clarify that matter, but she was unable to do so and promised to come back to me. I fear that she has not yet done so. The matter is as relevant today as it was then. The functioning of the regulatory procedure of ethical standards officers and the standards board—the powers of tribunals—could conflict with the ECHR, in which case the Bill will be undermined.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and I reiterate his question to me to the Minister. What is the role of these officers and of the other powers in the conduct of investigations as regards article 6 of the convention?
To get back to the point, a 10-year lapse is necessary because officers may have been with a council for many years before that. The world of local government is relatively small. Surely 10 years is the minimum safeguard. That is the basis of amendments Nos. 42 and 43.
Amendment No. 44 deals with reports from ethical standards officers. As it stands, they can inform virtually everyone about the outcome of an investigation and give them a copy of the report, other than the person against whom the investigation was launched. It would seem to be a grave injustice if the target of the report is the only person not to be able to see it. In Committee, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions described a similar Opposition amendment as a worthy ambition that would produce some difficulties. Again, she promised to come back to us on Report. I notice, however, that the Government have tabled no amendments on that subject.
The right hon. Lady offered the excuse that the report might contain sensitive information about the perpetrators of a complaint and that, if the matter was not referred further—if the person was cleared of any misdoing—it might damage the person who made the allegations. Surely, the person who was sneaked against—to put it mildly—is due some human rights protection from potentially vexatious complainants.
There is no detail about any compensation that might be due to someone who was the victim of such vexatious complaining. A person who was the subject of inquiry might even have been penalised along the way for not complying with the handover of documents and so on, even if it was found that there was no case to answer. It appears that there is a presumption of guilt until proven innocent. That too seems to breach the European convention.
The amendment provides that the ethical standards officer must inform the subject of the investigation of the outcome and that that person is entitled to see a copy of the report. In Committee, the right hon. Lady said that she would continue to consider the matter and that she would try to ensure that the framework was right. I should like to see some evidence of that, because it is not apparent in any of the 115 Government amendments before us.
Amendment No. 45 deals with the decisions of case tribunals and with appeals—a matter to which the right hon. Member for Caernarfon referred. When a councillor


has been accused by the Standards Board, has taken the case to appeal—a facility added by the Government—and the case is pending, we suggest that the councillor should not be suspended, given that the period of suspension could be lengthy.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), said that the Government would introduce the right of appeal and that she was willing to reconsider the matter, given that a by-election could be triggered when councillors were disqualified from standing while an appeal was pending. While the appeal had still not been heard, a councillor could lose his or her place on the council; a by-election could be held and, as he or she would not be entitled to stand, someone else could take the seat. If the Court of Appeal found that the person was not guilty—that the charge did not stand up—there would be no compensation. That accused councillor would have lost his or her seat. Thus, it is only right that, while an appeal is pending, a councillor should not be disqualified. The amendment would provide that safeguard.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in arguing that case—with which his right hon. and hon. Friends will assuredly agree—he can invoke the precedent of experience in the House? The hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) was rightly able to prove at appeal her innocence, and thereby remain a Member of the House. That prevented a situation in which, otherwise, a by-election would have been triggered. She was properly able to exercise her rights. Councillors, too, should be afforded such rights.

Mr. Loughton: My hon. Friend offers an interesting and helpful example. I should be interested to hear the Under-Secretary's response. The ethical standards officers and the standards board seem to have been afforded heavy investigatory powers. Those powers suggest too great a presumption of guilt.
We were promised further information from the Minister and from the Under-Secretary, but it has not been forthcoming in the Government amendments tabled on Report. Will the Under-Secretary address those matters in the few minutes left for debate on this group?

Ms Beverley Hughes: We have had a rehearsal of many of the issues that were raised in Committee. I shall deal with them as comprehensively as I can in the time that I have left for this section.
On new clause 3, it was made clear to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) in Committee that, although we were in sympathy with the spirit of what his new clause sought to achieve—that councils should be able to pursue losses arising to the authority from criminal misconduct by councillors—we felt that sufficient provision was already available to courts considering criminal cases that might arise from misconduct to issue a compensation order or provide for financial restitution. That still stands; we have not changed our view.
I can offer the hon. Gentleman reassurance on the particular point that he made. Separate action by a local authority will not be necessary to invoke any of the

powers in cases involving a criminal conviction. The court hearing the criminal case can order that restitution be made to the local authority. So the Bill does not impose on the local authority the additional burden of seeking compensation or restitution. The courts have those powers available to them. There is therefore no need for any special provision for such cases other than that which already exists and is available to the criminal courts.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham tabled a raft of amendments on the size and composition of local authority standards committees. We believe in striking a balance between setting appropriate parameters and allowing councils of different sizes and with different functions some flexibility in the composition of their standards committees. We think that the balance of representation between independent members and members of the council is about right. It is after all right that councils should have some discretion.
The hon. Gentleman reminded me that I had used the term "ownership". I make no apology for that. It is important that councils should own the local body that is entrusted with establishing its ethical framework and code of conduct. The hon. Gentleman is confused about the responsibility for the code of conduct, as opposed to the investigation of specific allegations. Local authority standard committees will not be responsible for investigations, so the hon. Gentleman's point that we are introducing self-regulation is not one that stands up to scrutiny. Local authorities will not be regulating themselves. The standards committees will have a different function. It is important that members of the council should own that function and be part of the apparatus that sets in place the code of conduct and ensures that the council's procedures for enforcing it are robust, but investigation of issues will be a matter for the ethical standards officers.

Mr. Loughton: I think that the phrase "self-regulation" was one that the Minister herself used in Committee. Given that time is running out, I should be grateful for her response on the European convention; she promised to come back on that point. Has her confusion been resolved?

Ms Hughes: I was not confused in Committee, and I am certainly not confused now. We are convinced that the provisions for appeal against the findings of a case tribunal, which are contained in clauses 75(10) and 76(15), are robust. It is our view and in line with the advice that we have received that the provisions in part III are compatible with the European convention on human rights. We are proceeding on that basis.
The hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment on the standards board. He is confused about the difference between a quorum and a constitution. The Bill sets in place the minimum for the board to function constitutionally. That is different from a quorum, which is the number needed to take a particular decision. That will be for the board itself to decide, in terms of its operational procedures. We have already told the hon. Gentleman that we envisage a standards board of five or six members.
In the few moments that I have left—

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Hughes: No, I will not.
In relation to amendment No. 45, we have produced Government amendment 203—

It being five and one-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put and negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should not have been talking while I was putting the question. It is not the done thing.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 46

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 125, in page 29, line 42, at end insert—
'and police authorities in Wales'.

No. 126, in page 29, line 45, at end insert "(other than police authorities)".

No. 127, in page 30, line 7, at end insert—
'( ) Before making an order under this section so far as it relates to police authorities in Wales, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) such representatives of police authorities in Wales as he considers appropriate,
(b) the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, and
(c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

No. 128, in page 30, line 30, leave out—
'established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 47

MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT

Amendments made: No. 129, in page 30, line 46, after "England" insert—
'and police authorities in Wales'.

No. 130, in page 31, line 3, after "Wales" insert "other than police authorities".

No. 131, in page 31, line 15, leave out from "section" to end of line 16 and insert—
' 46, before an order is made under that section'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 48

DUTY OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES TO ADOPT CODES OF CONDUCT

Amendments made: No. 132, in page 32, line 19, leave out "their principal office" and insert—
'an office of the authority'.

No. 133, in page 32, line 30, after "England" insert—
'or a police authority in Wales'.

No. 134, in page 32, line 31, leave out "or.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 50

STANDARDS COMMITTEES

Amendments made: No. 135, in page 33, line 34, after "England" insert—
'or a police authority in Wales'.

No. 136, in page 33, line 36, after "England" insert—
'or a police authority in Wales'.

No. 137, in page 33, line 47, at end insert—
'and police authorities in Wales'.

No. 138, in page 34, line 16, after "England" insert—
'and police authorities in Wales'.

No. 139, in page 34, line 18, after "England" insert—
'or a police authority in Wales'.

No. 140, in page 34, line 21, after "England" insert—
'and a police authority in Wales'.

No. 141, in page 34, line 24, after "England" insert—
'or a police authority in Wales'.

No. 142, in page 34, line 30, after "Wales" insert "other than police authorities".

No. 143, in page 35, line 6, after "Wales" insert "(other than police authorities)".—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 51

FUNCTIONS OF STANDARDS COMMITTEES

Amendments made: No. 144, in page 35, line 32, at end insert—
'and police authorities in Wales'.

No. 145, in page 35, line 35, at end insert "(other than police authorities)".

No. 146, in page 35, line 38, at end insert—
'and police authorities in Wales'.

No. 147, in page 35, line 41, at end insert "(other than police authorities)".—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 54

STANDARDS BOARD FOR ENGLAND

Amendments made: No. 148, in page 38, line 35, after "England" insert—
'and police authorities in Wales'.

No. 149, in page 38, line 38, after "England" insert—
'and police authorities in Wales'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 61

REPORTS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 150, in page 43, line 25, at beginning insert "subject to subsection (4)(b)".—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 65

LOCAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSION FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN WALES

Amendments made: No. 151, in page 46, line 38, after "Wales" insert "(other than police authorities)".

No. 152, in page 46, line 41, after "Wales" insert "(other than police authorities)".—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 66

INVESTIGATIONS BY LOCAL COMMISSIONER IN WALES

Amendment made: No. 153, in page 47, line 31, leave out "inform" and insert "give written notification to".—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 68

REPORTS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 154, in page 48, line 44, at beginning insert "subject to subsection (4)(b)".—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 69

INTERIM REPORTS

Amendment made: No. 155, in page 49, line 45, after "suspend" insert "or partially suspend".—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 70

MATTERS REFERRED TO MONITORING OFFICERS

Amendment made: No. 156, in page 51, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) In its application to police authorities in Wales, subsection (1) has effect as if for the reference to the National Assembly for Wales there were substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 78

DISCLOSURE AND REGISTRATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 157, in page 59, line 11, leave out "Wales" and insert—
'standards committees of relevant authorities in Wales (other than police authorities)'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 79

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Amendments made: No. 158, in page 59, line 17, at end insert—
'and police authorities in Wales'.

No. 159, in page 59, line 20, at end insert "(other than police authorities)".

No. 160, in page 59, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) Before making an order under this section so far as it relates to police authorities in Wales, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) such representatives of police authorities in Wales, and of employees of such authorities, as he considers appropriate,
(b) the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, and
(c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

No. 161, in page 59, line 34, leave out—
'local government, and of local government employees, in Wales'
and insert—
'relevant authorities in Wales, and of employees of such authorities,'.

No. 209, in page 59, line 44, leave out from "means" to end of line 4 on page 60 and insert—
'an employee of the authority other than an employee falling with any description of employee specified in regulations under this subsection

( ) The power to make regulations under subsection (7) is to be exercised—

(a) in relation to England, by the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales, by the National Assembly for Wales.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 80

INTERPRETATION OF PART III

Amendments made: No. 162, in page 60, line 16, leave out—
'in relation to a relevant authority to which Part II of this Act applies'.

No. 163, in page 60, line 24, at end insert—
' "police authority" means a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996,'.

No. 164, in page 60, line 36, at end insert—
'( ) Any reference in this Part to a member of a relevant authority, in the case of the Greater London Authority, is a reference to the Mayor of London or a London Assembly member.'.

No. 165, in page 61, line 8, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

No. 166, in page 61, line 20, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

No. 167, in page 61, line 29, at end insert—
'(b) if the authority is one to which Part II of this Act applies, for being or becoming a member of an executive of the authority.'

No. 168, in page 61, line 43, at end insert—
'( ) Any functions which are conferred by virtue of this Part on a relevant authority to which Part II of this Act applies are not to be the responsibility of an executive of the authority under executive arrangements.
( ) Any functions which are conferred on the Greater London Authority by virtue of this Part are to be exercisable by the Mayor of London and the London Assembly acting jointly on behalf of the Authority.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

New Clause 4

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR LOCAL ELECTIONS IN ENGLAND AND WALES

'( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a form of proportional representation for elections to local authorities in England and Wales.

( ) No statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) above shall be made unless it has been approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Members present who served on the Committee that considered the Bill will be well aware that a considerable amount of our time was spent debating what measures could be taken to improve the public's interest and involvement in local government, and in particular what measures could be taken that would improve turnout at local government elections.
It became increasingly clear that it is the Government's view—erroneous, in my opinion—that turnout at local elections is likely to be increased as a result of their measures to change the decision-making structure of local government. The view that was expressed from the


Liberal Democrat Benches, to some extent supported by Conservative Members, was that such moves were unlikely to make any change in the turnout at local elections, but that two measures might go some way to achieve that much desired aim. The first, as I said earlier, would be to increase the power of local government to ensure that it could take steps to respond to the concerns of the people that it sought to serve; the second would be to change the electoral system.
Mr. Michael Thrasher of Plymouth university, an expert in these matters, has estimated that where a form of proportional representation for local government elections is introduced it will be likely to increase turnout by about 7 per cent. That may not seem a particularly significant increase, but given that the starting point is in the order of about 30 per cent., that is a rather more significant increase than it might at first appear.
It was not merely to increase turnout at local elections that we tabled the new clause, however. We did so because we believe that in local government, as in all other spheres of government, the electors have a right to ensure that their voice is heard, and heard in the sense that the parties that they represent, and seek to represent by their votes, are appropriately represented in that particular governing body. The House is well aware that, at present, there are, up and down the land, a number of local councils that are, in effect, one-party states. There are a number of examples where that one-party state is a Labour one-party state, examples where it is Conservative, and even examples where it is Liberal Democrat.
I was speaking only the other day to the leader of Richmond upon Thames council, who pointed out that he has on his council something like 80 per cent. of the seats, having achieved for Liberal Democrats fewer than 50 per cent. of the votes.
Confronted with the problems of an unfair electoral system, it is interesting to note that the Government have already responded. They have seen to the introduction—perhaps not in the form that Liberal Democrats would like—of proportional representation for the European elections, for the Greater London Assembly elections, for the elections for the National Assembly for Wales and for the Scottish Parliament. Of course, for elections to the Assembly and for local government in Northern Ireland, there has been a form of PR for some time. Shortly, we shall see Labour party support in Scotland for the introduction of PR for local government.

Mr. Wigley: In the normal run of events, I would very much want to support the new clause. The hon. Gentleman referred to the National Assembly for Wales, so why would the new clause provide for orders to be introduced by a Secretary of State, but make no provision whatever for the power to be used by the National Assembly for Wales in the way other measures in the Bill make such provision?

Mr. Foster: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Perhaps, he rightly shows a possible deficiency in the package of measures that we have introduced. It is up to him to introduce additional proposals to rectify that possible omission, but I am

delighted that he said that we would have his support for the measures, subject to the further provision being made. I remind him that there will be a further opportunity in another place to attend to that matter. Were he to arrange for that to be done, he would have the support of my colleagues in another place. I am grateful to him for raising this point.
Having seen the Government's interest in moving towards PR in a number of the tiers of governance in this country, I merely seek to give them the opportunity to introduce it for the tier of local government. As I have said, there are many good reasons for doing that. One would certainly be to bring to an end the problem of the many councils—about 90—that are run by a single party with 80 per cent. or more of the seats. Indeed, there is a further problem with the nature of the current system. It does not very often lead to changes in political control. Some 55 local authorities have been under the same political control for more 20 years.
Most fair-minded Members of the House would accept that there are problems to be addressed and might accept that the introduction of PR may go some way to solving them. If they do not wish to be fair-minded in that sense and are merely concerned with their own party political interest, it is worth reflecting that continuation of the first-past-the-post system may lead to significant problems for some of the parties represented in the House.
Research shows that, following the most recent local government elections, a continuation of the first-past-the-post arrangement could lead to a significant reduction in the Labour party's representation in local government in subsequent years. If there is merely a concern about party issues, the Labour party at least might wish to do something about the electoral system. Again, according to the research, first-past-the-post systems were primarily responsible for the dramatic fall in the number of Conservative councillors from 1979 to 1997. Their number more than halved.
10.30 pm
The question then is what support there might be for such measures. Interestingly, support is very wide ranging. The Local Government Association—whose chairman I shall return to in a moment—the Local Government Information Unit, the New Local Government Network, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Scottish Council Foundation and others have spoken of the merits of moving to PR for local government.
Politicians of all parties have expressed support for PR. It will come as no surprise that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have, over the years, made comments in support. However, it is perhaps more instructive to note the views of those such as Sir Jeremy Beecham, who said in 1998:
In too many town halls today there is no effective opposition. The introduction of a reformed local electoral system, which will give representation to opposition parties and which more accurately reflects their electoral performance, is needed.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), in a document that he wrote with Mr. Andrew Adonis, advocates the introduction of PR to break up single-party states and to make sure that decisions are scrutinised by a viable opposition. The Minister of State has continually expressed concern about scrutiny.
On the Conservative Benches, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has spoken a number of times about his support for PR. On one occasion he said:
What I don't understand is why the government hasn't simply opted for proportional representation.
He went on to argue that PR is far simpler than holding referendums, and that as we are beginning to have PR in other tiers of government, we should introduce it to local government.
Turning to the Labour Benches, while it is well known that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Home Secretary, rejects the introduction of PR for Westminster, at least at present, he has said:
But I've also always said that there's a very different case when it comes to the voting systems at a local level.
I also have quotes from various members of Plaid Cymru, the party of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and from members of other parties.
That is instructive, but is also useful to know what the media are saying about PR. The Mirror has argued in favour of it so that
no party can ever totally dominate for years.
Mr. Peter Riddell in The Times has argued that
without PR, Labour will continue to be embarrassed by its one-party local states.
Support has come from the Local Government Chronicle, Mr. Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer, editorials in The Independent and various writers in The Guardian.
Again, that is all very well, but academics who see the matter in a different light have also provided support for the argument. Professors George Jones and John Stewart are among those who have argued in favour of PR. Interestingly, support also comes even from the world of business and commerce. For example, Lord Haskins, chair of Northern Foods, said:
Strong local government needs the backing of the local community, and the best possible people as councillors. Proportional representation is one of the best ways to achieve this.
There is growing support on both sides of the House, throughout the media and among the population at large for the introduction of PR.
Proportional representation at local government level would ensure a fair voting system in this country in which people's votes really would count. Only when people feel that their votes will count are they likely to even bother to go out to vote. To those who are concerned about turnout and the involvement of local people in local government, I strongly suggest that the introduction of PR would go a long way to resolve their concerns.
Although my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have a clear view as to our preferred option—the particular form of PR that we want—I stress that we have not incorporated that in the new clause. We have left the matter open for wide-ranging debate before the House discussed the regulations that we propose and before the Secretary of State introduced them. By its very nature, the new clause is enabling. It would enable much wider debate before the introduction of a form of PR, but PR is what local government and local people need and deserve.

Mr. Neil Turner: I am not opposed to proportional representation per se. [Interruption.] We need to look at an institution before deciding whether PR is particularly

relevant to it. I would oppose PR for institutions that legislate or deliver services because the stability, clarity and transparency of strong government are important to them.
Proportional representation clearly goes against the whole history and tradition of government in this country. Each of us holds a constituency surgery, and people want to see their Member of Parliament or councillor. They want to be able to confront us and to have the comfort of saying, "I'll withdraw my vote if you don't do what I want you to do." That might not be a particularly strong threat to some of us, but we would all be personally affronted by such a remark. It would be no good thing if we were able to say, "I'm third on the list, so you can withdraw your vote to your heart's content. It will make no difference to me."
The argument has been made that PR would increase turnout, but the evidence is mixed at best. The Greater London Authority elections this year produced no increase, yet they were held under a form of PR. Equally, it is arguable that the form of PR used in last year's European elections reduced turnout. If there is no evidence that PR would increase turnout, would it increase effectiveness? Again, we can look at the evidence.
Audit Commission performance indicators show whether hung councils or those with strong representation from one party are more effective. Hon. Members should look at the graphs for low-cost, high-delivery councils and for high-cost, low-delivery councils and put a spread over them. They show no correlation whatever between performance and status, whether councils are hung, strongly controlled or marginal. There is no correlation between a council's effectiveness and the type of control.

Mr. Don Foster: Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's most recent document, "Findings"? If not—it was circulated to all hon. Members only in past few days—may I suggest that he would be well advised to read it before continuing with that line of argument?

Mr. Turner: I have not seen the document, but I will look at it. My experience in the Greater Manchester area is that authorities such as Stockport, which is largely a hung council, and my own, which is strongly Labour, both provide effective services at low cost.
The argument for proportional representation by the fair votes campaign confuses equality with equity. There is no doubt that proportional representation would produce a lot more councils where there is no overall control—hung councils. That will mean that the least popular party will effectively become the most powerful, because it is that party, rather than the electorate, which will decide the form of administration. The third party will always have power because it will decide whether to join the second or the most popular party to become the administration.
The way that the electorate decides in this country means that the third party is usually the Liberal Democrats, so it is no surprise that they support a fair votes campaign that would give them access to power by the back door, when they are so consistently rebuffed at the front door.

Mr. Christopher Chope: The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) may not be against


proportional representation per se, but he advanced some powerful arguments against the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
It is important that people should be strongly motivated to vote in local elections. From my experience, the most important aspect is that, when they vote, they know that they can change those who control the council or local government. Low turnouts in local elections are usually associated with elections by thirds, which mean that, even if everybody in all the council wards voted for a particular minority party, they still would not be able to achieve a change in the control of the council.
Councils for which there are all-out elections every four years tend to have a higher rate of voter participation than councils that are subject to elections by thirds, quarters or halves, as the Government propose. The way to make people feel that their vote counts is by means of a system where, through the ballot box, they can change the control of their own local government.

Mr. Tom Levitt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If 40 per cent. of people voted in an election once every four years, and if 40 per cent. voted in an election by thirds one year, one year and one year, rather more people would vote for that council at least once over a four-year period than in an all-out election once every four years. Splitting the election into thirds increases the number of people who vote over a four-year period.

Mr. Chope: If everyone is allowed to vote once a year for four years, rather than once every four years, they will be able to vote more frequently and their collective votes will be more numerous.
That misses the point that I am making, which is that, when people vote, they know that their vote can change the control of their local government. If they do not feel that their vote will be able to change the control, they are less motivated to go out and put their vote in the ballot box. That is why the experience of local government in this country shows that local authorities where there are all-out elections tend to have a much higher turnout than authorities that have elections by thirds.
In my constituency, there are two district councils, East Dorset district council and Christchurch borough council. Last year, there were all-out elections and people realised that they could defeat the Liberal Democrats and change control of those two councils. That is what they did, both in East Dorset and in Christchurch, and now both those councils are run by the Conservatives.

Mr. Loughton: The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) seems to be under the illusion that if people vote every year and the turnout is 40 per cent., it is a different 40 per cent., each year, making a total of 120 per cent. It is, of course, the same 40 per cent. who are likely to vote each year. The evidence suggests, if anything, that voter fatigue means lower turnouts if people have to turn out for many elections. Hence the turnout on a four-year basis tends to be higher, as my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point.
If we need to get more people involved in local government, why do we not keep the system simple? Nothing could be simpler than a system whereby the candidate who receives the most votes wins. Everybody understands that. The Liberal Democrats seem to want to change the system so that it is far more complicated. We need to attract people to vote in local elections. If we keep the system simple, we are more likely to be able to attract their interest. Therefore, I strongly oppose the new clause.

Mr. Loughton: During the Committee stage, alas, time constraints prevented us from being regaled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) with the regular feature that the Liberals trot out, that of proportional representation, so the hon. Gentleman has been slightly indulged here this evening, but his case has been no more forceful.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of one-party states where the party had been in power for 20 years, and when people turned up to vote it made no difference. The conclusion was that a PR system would mean more seats, particularly for Liberals, and that more Liberal councillors would be a good thing for him.
The hon. Gentleman also tried to tempt our support by saying that the dramatic fall, as he put it, in the number of Conservative councilors—by some 50 per cent between 1979 and 1997—which has largely been reversed in the past three years, I hasten to add, was due to the voting system working against us. We are not complaining about it. If anybody should be in favour of PR purely for their own reasons, it would be us, but we are not, because we do not believe that it brings about a strong result. The hon. Gentleman was flailing around, quoting all sorts of unknown professors. I am sure they have produced all sorts of wonderful treatises to back up his argument.
Then the hon. Gentleman made another great, sweeping statement, that there is growing support from all sections of the public at large for what he inevitably calls "a fair voting system"; that only if the public feel that their votes count will they vote, but there is no evidence to suggest that, where the experiments have taken place, that is happening.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) quite neutrally, as he put it, made a very good case that we have had the experiments with the devolved Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland, which have produced low turnouts, with only 25 per cent of the population of Wales voting in favour of the Assembly. There is a hung Parliament and a hung Assembly, and the turnout was no greater than would be expected in any normal election, despite a form of PR being used. In the European Parliament elections, where we had a form of PR for the first time ever, there was a record low turn-out.
The hon. Member for Wigan also mentioned the London Assembly. The turn-out there was a derisory 33 per cent., and we have a hung Assembly. As the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), said in a written answer last week:
Almost 300,000 people did not use their second preference vote for the Mayor… About 130,000 did not cast a vote for a constituency assembly member and about 70,000 did not cast a vote for a London assembly member.—[Official Report, 29 June 2000; Vol. 352. col. 599W.]
Now the hon. Member for Bath is suggesting that we should extend this failed system, which has certainly done anything for increased turn-outs. One of the biggest


bugbears for the Government, shared by all sides of the House, is how we can increase turn-outs at elections. There is no proof that any proportional representation systems have done anything to improve the turn-out.
Our fear is that the creeping experimentation with PR that is getting into every sphere of new forms of governance, such as the new assemblies and local government bodies, has Westminster as its next and ultimate target. Apparently, as part of the deal stitched together between the minority Labour Administration and the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Parliament has commissioned a report into using PR for Scottish local elections. Leaks of the report have started to emerge and I wonder whether the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is in a position to provide a progress report and tell us when its findings will be made available.
We have heard nothing from the hon. Member for Bath to tempt us to experiment with further forms of PR in local government. I can perceive no evidence that there is growing support for it from all sections of the public. As for the whole business of having more elections, we have found time after time that election fatigue contributes to lower turnouts: we saw that last year, when we had European Parliament elections, local elections and elections in Scotland and Wales. The result of the hon. Gentleman's proposals would be that the least popular party became the most powerful. Backdoor merchants that they are, the Liberal Democrats want to promote PR, but we should have none of it.
In the few minutes that the Minister has left to respond to the debate, I hope that she will take on the subject of the findings of the Scottish report.

Ms Armstrong: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister will not do as the hon. Gentleman asks, seeing as the amendment is narrowly drawn and refers only to England and Wales. If the hon. Gentleman wants a report, he will have to ask for it some other time.

Ms Armstrong: I was going to tell the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) that the whole report was made public last week, so I do not know where he has been. Perhaps he does not understand that Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom; therefore, what is published in Scotland is available to everyone in England and Wales—indeed, everyone in the world. If he had looked at the websites or in newspapers, he would have seen the report, but, once again, he has failed to keep up with events.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) tabled the new clause, and he will not be surprised to learn that the Government have not changed their view since debating the issue in Committee. Our position on proportional representation for local government elections is well documented, having initially been set out in the local government White Paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People". The Government do not propose to change the voting system for local government, other than in the introduction of the supplementary vote system for the election of directly elected mayors. We believe that local government modernisation requires more fundamental change than simply changing the voting system. Our debates on the provisions of this Bill and the Local Government Act 1999 bear that out.
In Committee, I said that no Government close down debate. There is a debate going on within the Labour party about the principles of PR, especially in relation to elections to this House. A similar debate is going on in Scotland on the suitability of using PR for local government elections. However, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's proposal helps the debate.
The Government do not believe that there is any point in including in the Bill an enabling provision for a system of elections by proportional representation. Furthermore, I am not sure whether an enabling clause is the right way in which to introduce such an important constitutional change. Although the new clause provides for any order to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure, it would essentially leave the decision to the Secretary of State. The House would not find that acceptable. Much more debate would be required outside and inside the House before we considered such proposals.
The Government's position is clear, and consistent with our comments in the White Paper. I believe that the House's position is also clear. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will withdraw the new clause, although I suspect that he will not.

Mr. Don Foster: Let me put the Minister out of her misery immediately: I have no intention of following her final piece of advice. I confess that this evening's contributions have contained no surprises. I acknowledge that I have placed the Minister in a rather difficult position. Like her, I am conscious that the Labour party will hold a major debate on proportional representation this weekend. I suspect that the Minister no longer has any idea of its outcome.

Mr. Levitt: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the debate is not only about PR versus the status quo? Electoral reform is a much wider issue. Is he not being disingenuous by limiting the new clause to PR, when we should hold a much wider debate on electoral reform? PR is only one option.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. However, it is a little rich of him to accuse me of being disingenuous by not including wider matters in the new clause. A Bill that addresses some of those issues has only recently been passed. My party supports some of the experimentation that would increase the opportunities for people to vote. I accept that there is a wider issue to consider, but we are confining ourselves to PR in the new clause.
I acknowledge that the Minister is an especially difficult position, given that the Labour party's view on PR is ebbing and flowing. She clearly did not want to upset any apple carts. I am therefore delighted that she said that the Government would at least not close their mind on the matter.
I strongly recommend to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) the recently published Joseph Rowntree Foundation document, which is entitled "Political behaviour under proportional representation". I shall read two brief extracts from it. It states:
The current first-past-the-post voting system in local government elections often results in major discrepancies between the proportion of votes cast and the proportion of seats parties win on the council. Inflated majorities resulting in long periods of effectively


unchallenged one-party rule can often generate a sense of complacency in the dominant party, with electoral success regarded as a foregone conclusion.
That is especially apposite, given the Minister's claim that the purpose of the Bill is to sort out the mess in some of the one-party councils by undertaking what she describes as modernisation of local government. One of the best ways in which to modernise local government is to give it the opportunity provided by proportional representation.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 284.

Division No. 252]
[11 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Baker, Norman
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Ballard, Jackie



Brake, Tom
Kirkwood, Archy


Brand, Dr Peter
Livsey, Richard


Breed, Colin
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Burnett, John
Moore, Michael


Burstow, Paul
Öpik, Lembit


Cable, Dr Vincent
Rendel, David


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Chidgey, David
Stunell, Andrew


Cotter, Brian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Fearn, Ronnie
Tyler, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Webb, Steve


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Gidley, Sandra
Willis, Phil


Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Adrian Sanders and



Mr Mark Oaten.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashton, Joe
Cann, Jamie


Atherton, Ms Candy
Caplin, Ivor


Atkins, Charlotte
Caton, Martin


Austin, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Barnes, Harry
Chope, Christopher


Barron, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Beard, Nigel
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Begg, Miss Anne



Beggs, Roy
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Berry, Roger
Clelland, David


Best, Harold
Clwyd, Ann


Betts, Clive
Coaker, Vernon


Blackman, Liz
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coleman, Iain


Blizzard, Bob
Colman, Tony


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Corbyn, Jeremy


Borrow, David
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cox, Tom


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cranston, Ross


Bradshaw, Ben
Crausby, David


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Browne, Desmond
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Buck, Ms Karen
Cummings, John


Burden, Richard
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Burgon, Colin






Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair



Darvill, Keith
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keeble, Ms Sally



Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dawson, Hilton
Kemp, Fraser


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Doran, Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Dowd, Jim
Kidney, David


Drew, David
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lammy, David


Edwards, Huw
Laxton, Bob


Efford, Clive
Lepper, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Leslie, Christopher


Ennis, Jeff
Levitt, Tom


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Lock, David


Flint, Caroline
Love, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Follett, Barbara
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Macdonald, Calum


Foulkes, George
McDonnell, John


Fyfe, Maria
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Galloway, George
McIsaac, Shona


Gardiner, Barry
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
McNulty, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWalter, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
McWilliam, John


Goggins, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mallaber, Judy


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meale, Alan


Grogan, John
Merron, Gillian


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hanson, David
Miller, Andrew


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Moffatt, Laura


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moran, Ms Margaret


Healey, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hepburn, Stephen
Mountford, Kali


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hesford, Stephen
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hill, Keith
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hinchliffe, David
Norris, Dan


Hoey, Kate
O'Hara, Eddie


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Olner, Bill


Hope, Phil
Pearson, Ian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L


Howells, Dr Kim
Plaskitt, James


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pollard, Kerry


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pond, Chris


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pope, Greg


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pound, Stephen


Hurst, Alan
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Dawn


Jamieson, David
Purchase, Ken


Jenkins, Brian
Quinn, Lawrie


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles






Robertson, Laurence
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rooney, Terry
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Timms, Stephen


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Roy, Frank
Todd, Mark


Ruane, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Salter, Martin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Vis, Dr Rudi


Savidge, Malcolm
Walley, Ms Joan


Sawford, Phil
Ward, Ms Claire


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Shipley, Ms Debra
Watts, David


Short, Rt Hon Clare
White, Brian


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Spellar, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wood, Mike


Steinberg, Gerry
Woodward, Shaun


Stevenson, George
Woolas, Phil


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Worthington, Tony


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stoate, Dr Howard



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Tellers for the Noes:


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. Mike Hall and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 88

ADVISORY NOTICES

Amendments made: No. 169, in page 65, line 1, after "take" insert—
'or has begun to take'.

No. 170, in page 65, line 6, after "section" insert "and section 19B".

No. 171, in page 65, line 21, after "taking" insert "or continuing to take".

No. 172, in page 65, line 23, leave out—
'specified in the notice under paragraph (b)'
and insert—
'(as the case may be)'.

No. 173, in page 66, line 7, leave out—
'a copy of a notice or statement'
and insert "any document".

No. 174, in page 66, line 10, after "at" insert—
'or sending it by post to'.

No. 175, in page 66, line 11, leave out "revoked" and insert "withdrawn".

No. 176, in page 66, line 14, leave out "order" and insert "notice".

No. 177, in page 66, line 15, leave out "revocation" and insert "withdrawal".

No. 178, in page 66, line 19, leave out from beginning to second "the" in line 23 and insert—
'( ) where the notice relates to a decision, to make or implement the decision,
( ) where the notice relates to a course of action, to take or continue to take the course of action, or
( ) where the notice relates to an item of account, to enter the item of account,
unless and until'.

No. 179, in page 66, line 27, leave out "reasons" and insert "statement".

No. 180, in page 66, line 28, leave out from "19A(6)" to end of line 30 and insert—
'the consequences of doing the thing mentioned in the paragraph of subsection (1) which is relevant,'.

No. 181, in page 66, line 31, after "body" insert "or officer".

No. 182, in page 66, line 32, after "auditor" insert—
'of the accounts of the body'.

No. 183, in page 66, line 43 leave out "revoked" and insert "withdrawn".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 89

PAYMENTS IN CASES OF MALADMINISTRATION ETC.

Amendment made: No. 184, in page 67, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) Any function which is conferred on the Greater London Authority under this section is to be exercisable by the Mayor of London and the London Assembly acting jointly on behalf of the Authority.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 90

GRANTS FOR WELFARE SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 210, in page 68, line 23, at end insert—
'( ) Before making any determination, issuing any guidance or giving any directions under this section relating to all local authorities in England or Wales or any description of such authorities, the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the National Assembly for Wales must consult—

(a) such local authorities or representatives of local authorities as appear to him or it to be appropriate,
(b) such recipients, or representatives of recipients, of welfare services as appear to him or it to be appropriate, and
(c) such providers, or representatives of providers, of welfare services as appear to him or it to be appropriate.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

New Clause 12

INDEMNIFICATION OF MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for or in connection with conferring power on relevant authorities in England and police authorities in Wales to provide indemnities to some or all of their members and officers.

(2) The National Assembly for Wales may by order make provision for or in connection with conferring power on relevant authorities in Wales (other than police authorities) to provide indemnities to some or all of their members and officers.

(3) An order under this section may apply—

(a) to all relevant authorities, or
(b) to any particular description of relevant authority.

(4) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the National Assembly for Wales must consult—

(a) such representatives of relevant authorities,
(b) such representatives of employees of relevant authorities, and
(c) such other persons,

as he or it considers appropriate.

(5) In this section—
member", in relation to a relevant authority, includes—

(i) a member of any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or
(ii) a person who is a member of, and represents the authority on, any joint committee or sub-committee,


police authority" and "relevant authority" have the same meaning as in Part III of this Act.'.—[Ms Beverley Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 12 addresses the issue of indemnification which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) mentioned earlier, but obviously had not spotted on the amendment paper. The new clause will allow the Secretary of State by order to confer a power on local authorities in England and police authorities in Wales to provide indemnities to their members and officers. It will give an equivalent power to the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Welsh local authorities.
The new clause responds to an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that attempted to confer a power of indemnity on local authorities. In response, I pointed out to him that such a power raised many complex issues, but I also offered to see whether a suitable enabling provision could be introduced to enable the Secretary of State to confer an indemnification power on those local authorities once those issues had been discussed with local government.
The enabling power in new clause 12 covers all local authorities to which part III applies, including principal authorities, town and parish councils and single-purpose authorities. Before making an order under the power, the Secretary of State is required to consult representatives of local government and their employees.
The introduction of the power will enable the removal of an unhelpful ambiguity in the current powers of local authorities, and I am sure that hon. Members will welcome it.

Mr. Don Foster: I shall be very brief. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary has been able to introduce new clause 12 in response to a request that we made in Committee. She was not convinced that it would be possible to hold the consultation process in the short period between the end of the Committee's deliberations and now. I advised her that members of local government were ready and waiting for her telephone call, and she may wish to know that I called

the Local Government Association immediately after our Committee deliberations were complete and said that it should expect a telephone call from her.
I am delighted to hear that that call was made within less than 24 hours, and that agreement was sought with such speed. I wish that that was always the case, but I am delighted with the new clause.

Mr. Loughton: Conservative Members are delighted with the new clause too, of course, although I am a little surprised that the Under-Secretary did not refer to it when I raised the question of indemnification in connection with the previous group of amendments.
The Under-Secretary has already confirmed that any councillor or council appointee who sits as a councillor, a school governor, as a member of a community health council or of an economic partnership, for example, is covered by the model code of conduct. Will she further confirm that the new clause means that such an individual will be fully indemnified by the council if they take on any activities such as I have set out?

Ms Hughes: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have read the new clause very clearly. He is confusing two matters. We are no longer dealing with the code of conduct, but have moved on to indemnification.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the extent of indemnification. That will be the subject of the consultation to which I referred earlier.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 94

ALLOWANCES AND PENSIONS

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 70, line 31, leave out "pensions,".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 46 and 47.
Amendment No. 217, in page 71, line 9, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment No. 48, in page 71, line 13, leave out—
'which are operating executive arrangements'.
Amendment No. 49, in page 71, line 14, leave out "of the executive".
Government amendments Nos. 187 and 188.
Amendment No. 31, in page 71, line 18, leave out "pensions,".
Amendment No. 32, in page 71, line 24, leave out "pensions,".
Amendment No. 50, in page 72, line 9, leave out—
'which are operating executive arrangements'.
Amendment No. 51, in page 72, line 10, leave out "of the executive".
Government amendment No. 189.
Amendment No. 33, in page 72, line 11, leave out "pensions,".
Amendment No. 52, in page 72, leave out lines 26 and 27.
Government amendment No. 191.

Mr. Atkinson: The amendments have the particular purpose of reversing the trend towards professional, full-time councillors, and of preventing the substantial increase in the power of patronage that will result from the Bill.
Amendment No. 217 would remove the proposals relating to allowances, and the requirement to pay pensions to councillors. In Committee, we opposed the Government's proposal to pay pensions to executive members in the cabinet system. We did not consider that any councillor should be entitled to a pension, but the complaint to the Government was that it is was unfair to pay pensions only to executive members, rather than to all councillors. The Government have decided, therefore, to extend the pension regime to all local councillors.
We oppose the provision, as we believe that being a councillor is a matter of public duty. We do not consider it an activity that deserves large-scale reward, as the Government propose. In addition, the proposal has unleashed a host of headlines in various local newspapers about fat-cattery, especially in Labour councils.
No sooner was the idea of cabinets mooted than councillors throughout the country, particularly Labour councillors, began to award their leaders substantial sums of money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said in Committee, Hammersmith and Fulham was the first in this respect, with the council leader becoming, at that time, the most highly paid in the country. Hot on the heels of that award was the leader of Cardiff city council with an allowance of between £35,000 and £40,000 a year.
If my memory serves me right, the lord mayor of Cardiff was earmarked a salary of £58,000. It was only after protests and difficult meetings that that amount was reduced. When that issue was debated in Cardiff, members of the Labour group who opposed paying the lord mayor such a salary were subsequently suspended. That demonstrates the attitude of Labour councillors towards the new cabinet system.
My local newspaper, and that of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, is The Journal in Newcastle. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady points out that The Northern Echo is her local paper, but I believe that The Journal also circulates in her constituency. In any case, The Journal carried out a survey of north-east councils and their reaction to the cabinet system. It produced a headline, which I think damages all in local government: "Labour Councils Branded Tat Cats'". The paper contained an exposé of the amounts paid to various councillors. I am pleased to say that it included a photograph of me, taken nearly 15 years ago. It is always flattering to be reminded of what one looked like 15 years ago.
The Journal did a detailed analysis of how councillors' allowances had increased. In Sunderland, for example, the leader of the council's allowance went up from £10,900 to £30,000 a year. The leader of Sedgefield council, the Prime Minister's local authority, put up his allowance from £4,000 to £15,000 a year. If that were not enough, there have been huge increases in the leader's salary and

costs in Newcastle from £14,000 to £29,375, with the total allowances for the cabinet increasing by more than £619,000—a staggering amount of money.

Mr. Levitt: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's list with interest. Is he saying that only people who can afford to be councillors and pay their own pension contributions should be councillors? That is the conclusion that I am drawing from his remarks.

Mr. Atkinson: That is not the case at all. We accept that people should have a reasonable allowance to enable them to be councillors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Spell it out."] I will spell it out. We do not want people making a living as full-time councillors. That is utterly against the ethic of being a councillor. Those of us who have been councillors believed that the officers were the paid hands doing the job and that councillors were responsible for political control and advice. However, we did that as part of a different duty, not as a full-time career. The Government are proposing to make being a councillor a full-time and highly paid job.
Once we introduce high salaries, we increase not only the benefit to the individual but the power of patronage. That is one of the most important issues to come out of these proposals for high salaries.
Labour party groups talk of abolishing whipping, but if one does so but has the power of patronage, one achieves the same thing more effectively. As we have seen, if one becomes one of the chosen few who will get a cabinet job, with the salary and the pension, one also has the opportunity to serve on a national health service trust, with another £19,000 a year—that has happened frequently in the north-east. It is significant that the names of the leading figures in local government in the north-east of England crop up time and again—I am sure that that also happens in other parts of the country.
If one goes through the magic circle into the inner core of the Labour party in local government, one will pick up a salary of £30,000 a year, expenses, trips and, if one is lucky, a place on an NHS trust or on another quango. [Interruption.] Hon. Members think that that is funny, but The Journal also looked into how often leading councillors in local authorities in the north-east went on trips in this country and abroad. It discovered that some councillors incurred costs of £15,000 a year simply going on trips.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am intrigued by these Tories who are worried about money. I heard the other day that the Short money that they receive has increased by 270 per cent. I have never heard them complain about that. They have been transferring their staff from central office into the parliamentary office to use the Short money and it ought to be investigated. If a local authority did that, it would be surcharged.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although that may have been an interesting intervention, it had nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Atkinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would have liked to respond, but I accept your ruling. There is no connection. The Bill is about local government, local councillors and this insane cabinet and


executive system that the Government are proposing to force on them willy-nilly. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is so keen on so much government going on behind closed doors, with unaccountable councillors going on trips and not revealing how much they are spending.
This is a jolly debate, but when The Journal telephoned authorities to ask how much they spent on trips for their councillors, a large number refused to reply. It is worth mentioning the names of the councils that refused to give any details on conference attendance or expenditure. The Journal lists them as:
Newcastle, County Durham, Redcar and Cleveland, Sedgefield, Hartlepool, Tynedale, Derwentside, Easington, Durham City and Darlington.
We listened to lectures from Labour Members on Second Reading and in Committee about openness, yet a number of prominent councils, which spend many thousands of pounds a year on trips and visits, refused to itemise who got what and who went where.

Mr. Loughton: The gravy train.

Mr. Atkinson: Indeed.
The Government and Labour Members are forcing this system of cabinet government on local authorities against their will, in spite of opposition in the country and on the Labour Benches. The Government are in danger of damaging the reputation of local government in consequence. Council tax payers throughout the land have had to pay substantial increases because the Government have cut grant—people pay well over £1,000 for quite ordinary houses in some north country councils—but are seeing councillors helping themselves to vast increases in allowances and to more money than rate payers ever dreamed of. That will be hugely damaging to the reputation of councillors and of local government across the country.
I do not pretend that our amendment will change that, but I hope that we can send a message to the other place. When their lordships consider the measure, I hope that they will reconsider the matter. The reputation of local government and of many decent councillors will be besmirched by the measure.

Mr. Don Foster: Throughout the deliberations of the Standing Committee, I much enjoyed the contributions of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). However, I confess that his performance this evening causes me some confusion. I read carefully the string of amendments and have some difficulty in relating his remarks to their broad thrust—even that of those tabled by his colleagues and himself.
The key issue is relatively simple and narrow. Until this evening, the Government intended, in their proposals for executives, cabinets and scrutiny committees, that only one category of councillors—members of the executive or cabinet—should be eligible for a pension, with the agreement of the particular council. The Government were not minded that such provision should be available for other groups of councillors—such as those serving on scrutiny committees.
In Committee, I argued that that was a bizarre idea. The Government maintained that the scrutiny role was vital, yet councillors who served on scrutiny committees were to be deemed second class compared with those who served on the executive. In an effort to make progress on the matter, two proposals were made this evening. The hon. Member for Hexham suggests that we can even things up by refusing to allow any councillor, in any category, the possibility of a pension. That would be one way of solving the problem.
The amendments tabled by myself and my hon. Friends to provide equality would extend the pensions option to all councillors, subject to the agreement of the council. I was delighted to see that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions himself saw fit to add his signature to two of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and myself—a clear indication of his support for our suggestions.
The effect of other Government amendments would be much the same as those that we propose, although the wording is marginally different. I could chalk that up as a success, but that is not important. What matters is that the Government recognised an injustice and were prepared to do something about it. I welcome that.
I hope that, when the Under-Secretary replies, she will turn her attention to amendment No. 191—the effects of which appear to be somewhat bizarre and would mean that the National Assembly for Wales would be unable to give advice on some matters. If my interpretation is correct, that would be a retrograde step and we should have difficulty in supporting it. I look forward to an explanation of why the Government think the provision is necessary.

Ms Armstrong: The amendment has disappeared.

Mr. Foster: If that is so, I am absolutely delighted.
I am extremely pleased that the Government have accepted the principle of ensuring greater equality between councillors who are members of the executive and those who are members of scrutiny committees. It is a pity that they did not accept that earlier, but I am delighted that they have done so.

Ms Beverley Hughes: I intended to start by replying to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), but as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has already noted, nothing that he said related to the amendments, so I find myself at something of a loss. The hon. Member for Hexham spent a lot of time talking about allowances for councillors, not about the payment of pensions, which was the subject of the amendments. No one would support the award of unjustified salaries and allowances to councillors, but neither do we support the rubbishing of all councillors in which the hon. Gentleman engaged. That is equally reprehensible. The assertion that councillors do not merit a reasonable allowance for the time and work that they put in is a cheap, populist jibe that diminishes the excellent work that the vast majority of councillors do.
The hon. Member for Hexham should have talked about his amendments. I am surprised that the official Opposition continue to oppose outright the payment of pensions to members of the executive. The principle that


those councillors who, because of their position in the council, devote a significant amount of time to council work deserve a pension is widely accepted in both the local government world and beyond, and indeed, by the Conservative group on the Local Government Association. It will be interesting to see what the group thinks about the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
By providing that the basic or special responsibility allowances paid to members of the executive of an authority may be pensionable, we are acknowledging that the amount of time spent by some members on council duties is significant. With executive arrangements, we expect that this may increase further, and that some councillors, particularly those in the executive, may become more or less full time. It is right that we recognise that such councillors may lose out on pension rights where they do not also have paid and pensionable employment. If we are to attract the right people and a wider range of people into local government, it is important that we make such provisions. Having said that, we need to think long and hard about which councillors should be entitled to pensionable allowances, as I shall make clear in a short while. In the sense that we must not undermine the voluntary principle of public service to which the hon. Member for Hexham alluded, I agree with him.
It may prove to be the case that some councillors' roles are so demanding that we should make provision in regulations to give them access to an occupational pension such as the local government pension scheme. If that is the case, we will need to have the powers to do so. Clause 94 provides those powers. I see that an amendment has been tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team to remove the provisions in the Bill that deal with independent panels. That one really foxed me. The Opposition may have a view about whether councillors should receive pensions, but to be opposed to making an independent panel the mechanism for making recommendations to a council is difficult to understand.
In contrast to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition, the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bath have a great deal of common ground with the Government amendments. For the record, amendments Nos. 46 and 47 were first tabled by the hon. Members for Bath and for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and now appear as Government amendments, and of course we will accept them—just in case the hon. Gentlemen were in any doubt. Amendments Nos. 49 and 51 have the same purpose as Government amendments Nos. 187 and 189, but we do not feel that they do all that is needed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the Government amendments and not press his own. We also intend to accept amendments Nos. 48, 50 and 52 in the name of the hon. Member for Bath, so we will not move amendment No. 191. The other amendment to which the hon. Gentleman referred has not been selected.
As I made clear in Committee, we believe that it is right that everyone, including councillors, should have access to an adequate occupational or personal pension to supplement the basic state pension. All councillors will be able to benefit from stakeholder pensions, which are specifically designed to provide access to supplementary pension provision. I hope that, for most councillors, council work will not be their principal occupation, and these councillors will receive levels of allowances that are more in line with the intended target group for stakeholder pensions; but, with the advent of executive arrangements,

we expect that some councillors may become more or less full-time, and it is for those that the enabling powers in the amendments are particularly designed.
I have said that I intend to accept amendments Nos. 48, 50 and 52 to ensure that the enabling powers in clause 94 are as flexible as possible, in order that we can respond as we and the councils gain experience and circumstances change, following implementation of all the elements of the modernisation agenda in the Bill. However, in accepting the amendments, I should like to make a few things absolutely clear and place them on the record.
First, I consider it unlikely that the amendments will prove necessary in the long run because I think that all principal councils will ultimately be operating executive arrangements. The only way in which a principal council could find itself in a situation where it is not operating executive arrangements is if it is operating the alternatives following a referendum defeat, and we have already made it clear that we believe that to be unlikely.
Secondly, we believe that the new councillor role was created by the executive arrangements, which may mean that some councillor roles are such that they should receive pensionable remuneration. Thirdly, I believe that I have already made it clear that pensionable remuneration may not prove to be the best option for any member's roles, but the best case is likely to be for members of the executive. I must tell the hon. Member for Bath that I find it difficult to envisage any roles in arrangements of a non-executive style that might demand pensionable remuneration.
Therefore, although I believe that we should ensure that the enabling powers in the clause are wide enough to enable us to respond to the multiplicity of potential situations and arrangements that could arise following enactment of the Bill, I do not necessarily accept that we shall need to use all of that flexibility.
In summary, I shall repeat what we are proposing in relation to the various amendments. To ensure that the powers in the clause are wide enough to allow us to be flexible, and to enable us to react flexibly to the results of the consultation that we shall engage in on pensionable remuneration, we shall accept amendments Nos. 46, 47, 48, 50 and 52. I shall move those and Government amendments Nos. 187, 188 and 189 in the appropriate place and I shall not move amendment No. 191. However, I must oppose amendments Nos. 49 and 51 because they are technically flawed and, in my view, the amendments that we have tabled will achieve the intended effect. I most certainly oppose Opposition amendments Nos. 30 to 33 and 217, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham will withdraw amendment No. 30 and not press the others.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments made: No. 46, in page 70, line 32, leave out "of an executive".
No. 47, in page 70, line 34, leave out—
executive" and "local authority" have'
and insert ""local authority" has".
No. 48, in page 71, line 13, leave out—
'which are operating executive arrangements'.
No. 187, in page 71, line 15, leave out "executive" and insert "council".
No. 188, in page 71, line 17, leave out "and" and insert "or".
No. 50, in page 72, line 9, leave out—
'which are operating executive arrangements'.
No. 189, in page 72, line 10, leave out "executive" and insert "council".
No. 190, in page 72, line 23, leave out from "State" to end of line 25.
No. 52, in page 72, leave out lines 26 and 27.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Sea Defences (Norfolk)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Dr. George Turner: I am privileged to represent my Norfolk constituency. It is a good place to live and it is also particularly attractive to visitors; it has much to offer them. Much of the area that is the subject of this debate is important in residential and tourism terms, with its mixture of holiday parks and permanent properties as well as expanses of open land. However, it is also of international environmental importance, falling, as it does, within the Wash site of special scientific interest and a designated special protected area now formally recognised under the European habitats directive.
Currently, sea defences are mixed in character and include concrete walls and shingle embankments. In many parts, the beach itself is also an important feature of the defence. The need for effective sea defences in this part of Norfolk is well documented—the danger of flooding is writ large in the minds of my constituents. In 1978, flooding caused considerable disruption and damage to property, but in 1953 the position was tragically worse and 65 people died as a result of sea flooding.
Much has been done in west Norfolk since then, but I shall seek to persuade the Government that more needs to be done and, indeed, is overdue. In 1997, the Environment Agency, which has much delegated responsibility for these issues, published proposals for a "Hunstanton and Heacham Sea Defence Strategy". Its report pointed out that the residual life of some existing defences would be unacceptably low in the absence of recycling and maintenance. It concluded that current standards are too low, with existing practices and beach management insufficient.
The new strategy that the agency proposed involved a mixture of hard defences, beach nourishment and beach management. The strategy was in line with the shoreline management plans for both the Wash and north Norfolk. The estimated cost was some £10 million over five years. Locally, the plans enjoy wide support, and they will defend about £50 million worth of assets.
Following completion of the proposed strategy, the Government introduced a new points system on a pilot basis with the laudable object of providing a more rational basis for comparing competing schemes. The west Norfolk proposals were caught by the changes and remain the subject of heated debate. It is for the Environment Agency to carry out the required assessments under the points system. It is charged with ensuring value for money and sound engineering work. It is, however, for the Government to make final decisions. I understand that the Environment Agency will soon finalise its recommendations for our scheme.
There are, however, a number of important issues that I fear could be lost in the detail of the points scheme as explained to me. The most important of my concerns is over the proper assessment of the value to their owners and the community of the 3,500 essentially static caravans, mobile homes and park homes—call them what we will—that would be protected by the proposed scheme.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is the Minister responsible for fisheries and the countryside, came to west Norfolk where he met and listened carefully to representations from some of those most directly involved. They included Terry Evans, the chairman of the Heacham beach bungalow owners association, and Richard Searle, whose family has provided family holidays in my part of Norfolk for many years and who also speaks at a national level for those in the park home industry.
Following my hon. Friend's visit and at his suggestion, I have met further with appropriate representatives of the Environment Agency. They were thorough in explaining the technical detail and I am grateful to them. However, happily, I do not need to dwell too much on the detail tonight, for my conclusion is that this is a case where the engineers and officials can advise, but the buck must rest very firmly indeed with Ministers. As explained to me, the technical argument is not conclusive. Politics not science will determine the outcome.
The nub of the problem was summarised in earlier correspondence with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who told me:
Because most expenditure on flood and coastal defence falls on UK tax payers as a whole, costs and benefits have to be appraised from a National, rather than a regional, local, individual or corporate perspective. In the case of caravans, mobile homes and other temporary structures, it must be recognised that if a decision is taken to abandon a site, the National economic loss is limited as the actual assets still have a value if moved elsewhere.
This is a key argument to be addressed in west Norfolk. In some circumstances, it may be entirely valid, but I would argue otherwise in west Norfolk. It is simply too narrow a viewpoint. A final decision needs to take a broader perspective. In modern parlance, we need joined-up government.
We also need to recognise the need for local and regional circumstances to be taken into account. In particular, we should have regard to the Government's policies for tourism and the need to encourage economic regeneration in rural areas such as mine. The Government have firmly identified tourism as a growth industry of particular importance in the rural economy, which is suffering from the major problems of agriculture. Will the Government not then acknowledge that the estimated £157 million contribution from tourism is a vital part of the west Norfolk economy?
However, 60 per cent. of all holiday accommodation is in caravans, mobile homes and park homes, and 90 per cent, of them are located in the coastal areas that are under threat. Ministers must not allow the current formula considerably to underestimate the costs of moving or replacing such accommodation and to ignore the huge negative impact that its loss would cause the local economy.
I understand the theoretical point that the accountants have made—after all, I was trained as a theoretical physicist. In a more perfect world, such erudite points would suffice, but what of the real world in which people have to make practical decisions? What do the Government expect owners of those properties to do? Richard Searle tells me that it would cost him more than £16 million to relocate his park, which contains only 15 per cent. of the pitches affected. That means that the bill for full relocation is estimated at £90 million.
How can owners square such practicalities with a theory that assumes a seamless move, without planning complications, to bare agricultural land valued without planning consent? When should owners abandon their current sites? If Richard Searle waits until a flood warning is given, it will be too late to protect his property. The alternative is effectively to abandon his business. Richard Searle's summary of the situation is forthright. He says:
The loss of this holiday area would be devastating to both the individuals concerned and to the area. For a comparatively small cost, involving a modest change of policy this could all be avoided.
Will the Government acknowledge that if parks such as Searle's were to move inland to escape the sea, which is the focus of attraction for many tourists, they would lose customers in droves? Is it realistic to assume that those displaced will simply go elsewhere in the UK? I doubt it. Much of the competition will be from Europe, and European competitors are increasing their investment in tourist areas, providing marinas and specialised bathing beaches, and protecting existing developments. I have little doubt that much of the tourism displaced from North-West Norfolk would be lost abroad. The high hurdles set for planning permissions for park home sites, which are almost a universal feature of many structure plans, would help to ensure that.
I have also had strong representations from private owners of properties in the threatened areas, including those of the association of bungalow owners at Heacham. Interestingly, their chairman, Mr. Terry Evans, lives in Cambridgeshire. Many properties are second homes or are let. Mr. Evans and those whom he represents are, of course, anxious to see their property protected, but they have particularly emphasised the real danger of loss of life with continued delay in the implementation of the proposed scheme. They make a good point.
During the periods of highest risk of flooding, there are nowadays increasing numbers of tourists in residence because the holiday season has become extended as more people take short breaks. There could easily be 10,000 people to be evacuated if there were a serious threat. I have been advised that proper evacuation would require about four hours' warning.
The threat is of high winds from the worst direction when tides are high. However, the tides in the area are notorious for coming in much more quickly than they go out, and the tide would still be out when warnings would be most effective. It would be only two hours later, as the tide came in, that it would become clear, with the onset of damage to defences, whether fears were well founded—and of course that might be too late.
There is then a dilemma for those responsible for flood warnings. If they wait too long, there will be much more damage and possible loss of life. But if they are perceived to cry wolf regularly, the final outcome could easily be even worse. Formulae do not give weight to such local factors; Ministers must.
From my briefing with officers of the Environment Agency, I understand that our scheme now sits on the threshold of the required points total of 22 out of a maximum of 30. However, I was sorry to hear that additional advice at the end of last year further changed the details in the way that costs and benefits are analysed, and raised the hurdle to be jumped by the scheme. Work was still proceeding when I spoke with the agency, but it was clear that that issue, too, could be make or break by autumn.
More positively, I was reminded that exceptions are considered when important environmental habitats are involved, which is an interesting contrast to the rule-bound approach which I have heard to date when pressing the interests of my constituents as people. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can offer some assurance of balance in the final outcome.
I suggest that the time is fast approaching when Ministers will need to make decisions. With my own scientific and engineering background, I do not seek to undermine the usefulness of developing point-scoring systems. I am a former chairman of Norfolk education committee and I oversaw the introduction of just such a scheme in assigning capital funds for schools. However, formulae should inform political argument, not determine outcomes, and should provide guidance, not shelter for politicians.
Property and livelihoods are at stake in my constituency, and I ask the Government to add a dash of practicality to the theory. An important sector of the local economy in west Norfolk could be devastated and, of course, there must be overriding concern for the risk that getting it wrong poses to human life. My constituents' views are strongly held and I share them. We want a green light for the scheme.
I am pleased to note that, despite the lateness of the hour and her just-in-time arrival, my right hon. Friend the Minister has listened carefully to what I have had to say. Tonight, I know that I cannot realistically expect the decision that my constituents seek, but will she assure them that their case will be properly and carefully considered and that the points that I have made on their behalf will be appropriately weighted? Will she also assure them that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will give those points appropriate priority in his bid for Treasury funding in the spending review and in the allocation of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food budgets?

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I welcome the debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on drawing the House's attention to this subject and, indeed, on the way in which he spoke.
Flooding and coastal erosion, with damage to or loss of land and property, is an important and emotive subject, and understandably so. The damage and distress sustained by those affected is often severe, and not just in economic terms. We have seen the effects of flooding recently in Todmorden and in Bishop Auckland. That served as a timely and regular reminder that natural forces can overcome man. Although natural events such as flooding and coastal erosion can probably never be entirely prevented, it is obviously right that public authorities that are empowered to take measures to alleviate the risk act where it is reasonable to do so.
Government policy is to reduce the risks to people and to the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion by encouraging the provision of technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defence measures. Three key strands support

that policy aim. First, we encourage the provision of adequate and cost-effective flood warning systems by grant-aiding them. We also support underpinning measures. For example, in the past year, the Environment Agency has produced indicative flood risk maps that show the areas most at risk of flooding. Those are important tools in deciding where flood warning systems are needed, but whatever warning systems are in place, individuals must take action to protect themselves—they need to heed warnings.
Hon. Members will remember the message in the Environment Agency's flood awareness campaign last winter, which was part funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: "Floods don't just happen to other people". The risk to caravan parks and other vulnerable temporary occupancy sites was identified following the major flooding at Easter 1998, and the agency has written to site owners to raise awareness of flood risk with a request that they make visitors aware of such risks and of what they should do in the event of a flood.
Secondly, the Government encourage the provision of flood and coastal defence measures. We do so by providing grant aid to schemes that achieve an appropriate priority score—to which my hon. Friend referred—based on urgency, ministerial priorities and the cost:benefit ratio. Schemes also need to be sustainable. We cannot commit future generations to maintaining defences in areas where that is not sustainable. Defence measures need to be based on an understanding of natural processes and, as far as possible, should work with those processes.
As part of the strategic approach to flood and coastal defence problems, the Ministry has promoted the setting up of coastal defence groups which provide a forum for discussion and stimulus for co-operation, to help to ensure that coastal processes within particular stretches of coast are taken into account. To assist those groups in the strategic management of discrete stretches of coast, the Ministry has encouraged the preparation of shoreline management plans and has issued guidance on their preparation.
The aim of the plans is to provide a basis for sustainable coastal defence policies and to set objectives for the future management of the coastline, taking into account natural coastal processes, coastal defence needs, environmental considerations, planning issues and current and future land use. Shoreline management plans are intended to be living documents and will need to be reviewed at regular intervals. Indeed, a timetable for reviews should be included in the plans. The Ministry intends to issue revised guidance for the next generation of plans later this year.
It is for operating authorities to assess what measures are needed to reduce flooding and coastal erosion in their areas, and to produce relevant plans that are cost-effective and sound in engineering and environmental terms. It is important to recognise that, given the tremendous diversity of coastal formations in this country, there can be no uniform approach to coastal defence.
Coastlines recede or advance with changes in current, wind and tide. It is therefore unrealistic to expect that


every inch of coastline will remain exactly as it is now. Instead, authorities must look at a range of options and consider what the impacts of defending a particular stretch of coast are, so as to avoid, wherever possible, burdening future generations with the maintenance of unsustainable defences.
The bulk of expenditure on flood and coastal defences is, of course, provided by the taxpayer. The Ministry and the operating authorities therefore have a responsibility to ensure that value for money is obtained when schemes are funded. Because the expenditure falls on taxpayers as a whole, costs and benefits of proposed schemes are appraised from a national, rather than a regional, local, corporate or individual perspective.
Although economic analysis is an important aid to decision making, I can tell my hon. Friend that it is not applied in isolation and authorities are required to consider other matters, including environmental impact and sustainability, when deciding where investment in defences should be directed and determining the optimal solution.
The Government recognise the importance of sustaining flood defences and coast protection, and the outcome of the comprehensive spending review was that an additional £23 million was provided for Ministry funding over the past year, the current year and next year, bringing the total available to £230 million. Funding for future years will be considered in this year's spending review.
Next, the Government discourage inappropriate development in areas at risk from flooding and coastal erosion. I stress the word "inappropriate". It is necessary to ask whether it makes sense to place a development in a particular area. A key test is sustainability. Even if defence measures are put in place today to protect a new development, there will be continuing costs in maintaining them and in ensuring that they continue to do their job in decades to come, against the challenges of rising sea levels.
In 1992, guidance was issued to local planning authorities to steer development away from areas at risk of flooding. In April the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued a consultation draft of strengthened guidance, which will make flood risk a material consideration for local planning authorities. There is also guidance on the need for developers to make contributions to defences which are necessary as a result of a development, not just now, but throughout the likely lifespan of the development.
The Environment Agency remains a consultee on development proposals, and the agency's flood risk maps are important tools for local planning authorities in considering development plans and planning applications.
Having set out the Government's policy aim and objectives for flood and coastal defence, I should say that, however good they are, there is a need to ensure that they are delivered on the ground by some 650 operating authorities. In April this year the Government therefore put in place a series of high-level targets to help achieve a more certain delivery. We are requiring the operating authorities to produce policy statements to set out how they will achieve the Government's aims and objectives. There are targets in relation to identification and

inspection of defences, recording of results and assessing flood and erosion risk. We will, of course, be reporting on the achievement of these targets.
I now turn to some of the specific matters that my hon. Friend raised. He knows that the Ministry provides grant aid for capital flood and coastal defences and coast protection schemes, which have to be technically sound, economically worth while and environmentally acceptable. In the face of ever increasing demands for funding, priority scoring arrangements were introduced in June 1997 on a pilot basis, with a view to optimising the allocation of available funds. The priority scores take account of ministerial priorities, which my hon. Friend mentioned, as well as urgency and cost:benefit ratio. I welcome my hon. Friend's very reasonable comments about the priority scoring system and his understanding of it, and I listened carefully to some of the reservations that he expressed about the system.
For the first time sites of environmental interest were specifically identified within ministerial priorities, which of course also recognise the emphasis placed on the protection of life and hence on those parts of the country where large numbers of people live and work. The priorities are, first, flood warning; secondly, urban coastal and tidal defences, and environmental assets of international importance; thirdly, urban flood defences; fourthly, rural coastal and tidal defences, existing rural flood defences and drainage works, and environmental assets of national significance; and fifthly, new rural flood defence works and environmental assets of local significance.
We recognise that the priority scoring system may not be perfect; that is why we have regarded it as a pilot and indicated that we are prepared to consider revisions. A full review of the arrangements will be initiated later this year. However, it is in the nature of such arrangements that arguments are always made for higher priority, but rarely, if at all, for lower priority. Difficult choices therefore ensue.
In recognition of the United Kingdom's obligations towards internationally important habitats, the Government have decided that there must be no question of such habitats being lost. In some cases this could mean recreating habitats elsewhere as an alternative to saving a site, where strategic studies show this to be the more sustainable option. Where necessary, exceptional treatment regarding priority score will be considered for schemes designed to protect such habitats.
In relation to the defences for Hunstanton and Heacham, significant beach renourishment was undertaken in 1991 following agreement of a long-term strategy for the frontage. An ongoing programme of beach management has been in place since then. More recent reviews by the Environment Agency and its consultants have identified a number of shortcomings in the standards and longevity of the defences.
An updated sea defence strategy is being developed by the Environment Agency. It will need to satisfy the Ministry's engineering, environmental and economic criteria and be sustainable. If the works are to attract grant aid, they will need to equal, or exceed, the priority scores threshold; for the current year the threshold is 22.
A particular issue is the sustainability of the proposed defences in the light of the review of the earlier strategy. Also at issue is the priority score of the scheme. A significant component in this relates to economics, which


I know my hon. Friend is aware of, in which the value to be attributed to caravans in the holiday park is a major factor. In the case of caravans, mobile homes and other temporary structures, it is recognised that if a decision is taken to abandon a site the national economic loss is limited, as the actual assets still have a value if moved elsewhere. The agency is reconsidering in this light—including consideration of whether a case can be made for an alternative approach to the economic methodology. Any such departure would need to be considered with colleagues in the Treasury for their guidance, too.
I hope that, in the light of my remarks, my hon. Friend will be reassured that my Ministry will receive further representations from him. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who leads within the Ministry on the issue, is keen to ensure that applicants for support are treated seriously and that their treatment is based on detailed examination of all the relevant issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve midnight.